Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION, POLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

11.4 a.m.

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: I desire this morning to direct the attention of the House to events which have recently been taking place in Poland and which point unmistakably to a renewal of the persecution of the Christian Church in that country. The Roman Catholic Church, which the majority of Polish people acknowledge, has been the chief object and target of this new outbreak—

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act,1953.
2. Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1953.
3. Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1953.
4. Statute Law Revision Act, 1953.
5. Public Works Loans Act, 1953.
6. Air Corporations Act, 1953.
7. Electoral Registers Act, 1953.
8. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1953.
9. Glasgow Corporation (Water, &amp;c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1953.
10. Inverness Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1953.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION, POLAND

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

11.21 a.m.

Sir G. Hutchinson: When our proceedings were interrupted I was saying that the Roman Catholic Church in Poland has been the principal object of this new outbreak of intolerance. It has been upon the devoted leaders of that Church that the full fury and sinister venom of the present Communist leaders of Poland has been visited.
For some weeks past there has stood upon the Order Paper two Motions upon this subject, one in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan), and one in my own. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House have placed their names upon the Order Paper in support of these two Motions. The number of hon. Members who have been able to subscribe to these Motions encourages me to hope that the discussion which is about to take place will demonstrate that we are all of one mind upon this grave subject.
I hope that the voice of this House will speak once more with all the authority of past ages in this twin cause of individual liberty and religious freedom. If that should happen I think we can be sure that it will carry a message of renewed hope and encouragement to the unhappy people of Poland. This House, throughout its long history, has shown itself the advocate of freedom in religion, as in all else. Today, it would, indeed, be in accordance with our age-old tradition that we should speak with all the emphasis at our command, and I trust with unanimity, upon the side of these great causes which the House has so long and so strenuously upheld. I am certain that the oppressed people of Poland will gather new courage from the knowledge that this House of Commons is aware of their misfortunes and resents them bitterly.
I should like to say something about these Motions which have been placed upon the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland has put down a Motion to which I would gladly have added my name. But the hon. Gentleman's Motion calls for instructions to be


given to Her Majesty's Ambassador, and it appears, for certain formal or diplomatic reasons into which the House will not wish me to enter, that the Ambassador might not find himself in a position to carry these instructions into effect. In those circumstances, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's Motion was not one which any of us would wish to press upon Her Majesty's Government. So I placed upon the Paper a Motion of my own which was not open to the objection which had been felt to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and to which I am glad to think the hon. Gentleman was able to append his name.
I have been acquainted with the hon. Gentleman in this House for many years now. During those years I have always learned to look upon him, as I think we all have done, as a fearless and outspoken champion of the cause of religious liberty, not only in foreign lands but sometimes in this country as well. The hon. Gentleman has never hesitated to express the conviction, which we know that he so earnestly and disinterestedly entertains, of the essential need of the Christian faith in what sometimes seems to be an unchristian world. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman is so fortunate as to catch your eye in the later stages of the proceedings, I shall look forward to his help and support.
It would in some ways have been more appropriate that he should have opened this discussion this morning, and I would gladly have yielded my place to him to enable him to do so; but it was his generous wish that I should open the discussion and it is in accordance with his wish that I do so. It may be that the fact that I am not myself a member of the Roman Catholic Church prompted the hon. Gentleman to think that that fact in itself might lend greater force to the views which this House will express this morning.
The events of which I have been speaking have aroused throughout the civilised world, where personal freedom is still cherished, a deep sense of abhorrence and revulsion. I am sure the House would not wish me or expect me to recall these events in detail. They are, indeed, familiar to us all. It is, I think, enough for me this morning to say that at the end of September last it was announced that the Cardinal

Primate of Poland, Cardinal Wyszynski, had been arrested and had been removed from his see
A statement, purporting to have been issued by the Polish bishops but actually circulated by Communist agencies, was, I understand, published in Poland. In this statement the bishops were made to accuse the Cardinal of what is described as anti-political propaganda, and to request that he be banished. At this time, I understand, many of the Polish bishops were actually in prison, and it is clear that this proceeding was a mere device intended to invest the proceedings which it had been decided to institute against the Cardinal Primate with some semblance of the authority of the Church. Indeed, the bishops who are supposed to have subscribed to this memorandum had themselves a few months before presented a memorandum to the Polish Government protesting against the treatment which the Church had received and asserting the independence and non-political character of the Roman Church.
The House will recall that some years ago it was announced that an agreement had been reached between the leaders of the Church in Poland and the Polish Communist Government. The effect of this purported agreement was entirely to subordinate the Church to the civil Government of Poland. The agreement followed lines which have now become familiar in the attack which the Communist Governments in Eastern Europe have made upon the Roman Church and other Christian communities in different countries. Its true purpose was to impose more fiercely and more ruthlessly than before upon the unhappy Polish people the tyranny by which they are now oppressed. The Cardinal Primate has refused to be a party to this piece of trickery. He has continued to preach and to discharge his ecclesiastical office. It is for that reason that he has now incurred the displeasure of the present rulers of Poland.
It is not only against the Cardinal Primate that the persecution of the Polish Government has been directed. The Cardinal's Auxiliary Bishop has also been arrested, presumably on some similar fabricated charges. There can be no doubt that these arrests indicate a renewed outbreak of the persecution of the Church in Poland and, with the Church,


of the Christian religion, which has been a familiar feature of Communist rule in Poland and throughout the occupied countries.
This House will recall that in September the Bishop of Kielce was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment on allegations that for years he had acted as the correspondent of the authorities in the United States, and that the Catholic Hierarchy in Poland had been employed for political purposes. The Cardinal Primate vigorously repudiated these charges in a memorandum which he submitted to the Polish Government. No doubt it was this action which was made the immediate cause and justification for his arrest. The trial of the Bishop of Kielce followed the now familiar pattern of such events behind the Iron Curtain. As a preliminary to his trial the Bishop had been imprisoned for something like two years, and during that long and terrible ordeal his will power had been entirely broken and destroyed.
At his trial he confessed—as is common in trials which take place in Communist countries—to every charge that bad been made againt him and in his defence the only evidence which he tendered was an appeal for clemency, accompanied by certain political declarations which reproduced exactly the propaganda of his accusers. In the Western world we are not accustomed to trials of that character. It is clear that the trial of the Bishop was no more than a part of the attack and propaganda of the Communist Government against the Church in Poland.
Our gaze cannot penetrate freely through the Iron Curtain, but we can see enough to recognise that this renewed outbreak of persecution in Poland is one of the most sinister features of the history of Europe since the war. This persecution has fallen not only upon the Primate of the Roman Church and his immediate associates; it has been stated, and not contradicted, that seven bishops have been imprisoned, that more than 2,000 Polish priests have been imprisoned, deported, or made to flee into exile, and it is known that 37 priests have been put to death. Nearly half the religious houses in Poland have been closed, and more than 70 per cent. of the Catholic schools are no longer open.
All these events follow the pattern, with which we are now familiar, of similar happenings in Russia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere where Communist governments pursue their policy of suppression of the Christian Church. I do not know what action is open to Her Majesty's Government in this matter. I understand that in our relations with Poland the situation is not the same as it is in the case of those countries with which we were at war, and with which we have treaties which provide for certain liberties of conscience. Those treaties do not exist in case of Poland, and it may well be that Her Majesty's Government have no locusto represent to the Polish Government the feelings which their action has aroused in this country.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to hold out some prospect that our views may be made known to the Polish Government. I hope that he will be able to tell us that when an opportunity presents itself, as I trust it may, Her Majesty's Government will convey to the Polish Government, in no uncertain terms, the repugnance which is felt throughout our country, and, indeed, throughout all free countries, at the action which they have taken, and will assure them that that repugnance will not be allayed until there is clear and positive evidence that this campaign against a Christian Church will be discontinued and not resumed.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. David Logan: It is with a sense of responsibility that I address the House today. I want at once to thank the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) for his kindly reference to me, and also for the support which he has given to our idea of a Motion of this kind being brought forward. I am very sorry that the House of Commons is not more fully packed, and that this Motion could not have been debated earlier in the Session. But in the House of Commons beggars cannot be choosers, and we must be grateful for any little mead which comes along.
This is an all-party Motion. We are not meeting this morning in a spirit of propaganda. We are meeting because, throughout Europe—aye, throughout the world today—there is evidence of grow-


ing discontent not only at the persecution which has gone on yesterday and is going on today but, according to the policy which has been enunciated, is likely to go on for a long, long time in the future. One would be a coward to be silent in the House of Commons, and not express his feelings about the persecution not only of the bishops or Primates of the Church but also of Jewry and of Christians.
The common denominator which unites all men who believe the Credo in unum Deum is expressed in every form of godhead. I do not want to enter into a dispute about different creeds, but to emphasise the unifying factor of the belief in God. The genesis of our complaint is our belief that what is going on round about us, instead of being beneficial, has a deterioriating influence on the peoples of the world, and that, sooner or later, this problem has to be settled. How, I do not know—the ways of God are certainly mysterious—but some day we shall find an answer to this question.
The materialistic conception of life is the basis of a policy which is negative to peace and which is brought about by Communist rule. Take it wherever one finds it, in any part of the world where Communist infiltration has gone on, it has ruined the morale of the people. They have been subjected to terror; Governments have been overthrown, and the avowed policy, shown by all Communist thought and expression, is to destroy the power of Governments, to get rid of religion because it is above politics, and to gain universal power if it be possible.
I have been making some researches into history, and I find that this sort of thing has been going on for a long, long time. I remember reading that in an epoch of Christian history 1,953 years ago there was a change from the old law into the new, and the Messiah came. New life and new blood were brought into the body politic. We were given then a new enunciation of first principles, on which we stand today. It is because of that enunciation 1,953 years ago, that we are here today expressing these opinions.
As a Christian, I wish to give my reasons for supporting the Motions that are on the Paper. Under the Old Law the prophets foretold of the coming of

the Messiah, and the coming of the Saviour was the fulfilment of the prophecy, and during His 33 years he taught the Christian mode of life, and when he asked, "But, whom say ye that I am?" he got the reply, "Thou art the Christ the son of the living God." The preaching and teaching Church came into existence. "Pax vobiscum" was announced to the people:
My peace I give unto you. My peace I leave with you. Not as the world gives give I unto you.
It is peace which the world cannot give; in other words, it is dissociated from the material things of life and was and is to bring home to the minds of the people the verity of life eternal.
I am not giving a sermon. I am stating historical facts. I am speaking of a time when a great change came to the world, when a Man, unkown in His early days, after 33 years of His Mission was recognised as a power never known before. He was the eternal Son of God. He laid down definitely the alpha and the omega of Christian belief. From that time until now has been preached a new life, a new course and a new mode for men to follow.
Unfortunately, we have never reached an age of peace. We have never been able to get rid of strife and troubles. Now we find ourselves ridiculed by a body that has usurped position and authority. It is a living cancer in the world. Through infiltration it has spread to all the countries of the world. Even in this country we have the fellow travellers. I make no apology for saying so, when speaking here from the Christian point of view. I speak of those who sympathise with Communism. I sympathise with the Russian people, but not with the dragooning that they are experiencing at the hands of the Government in Russia.
Communism has infiltrated into other countries. In Bulgaria, for instance, the bishops of the Church, not leading an insurrection against the Government, were persecuted for trying to see that Christian morality and teaching were not subjugated by terrorism. In Yugoslavia, Archbishop Stepinac was imprisoned. Only a few months ago, in Poland, Cardinal Wyszinski, who is mentioned in the Motions on the Order Paper, was arrested. We feel, Christians and Jews alike, that persecution must have an end.


Here, in this country, we have this House of Commons, as a forum open to us to put forward our views. We do so not because we think that it will start a counter revolution. I wish it would. We do so to bring to the minds of the people of England the knowledge that there is persecution of the leaders of Christian thought throughout the world.
In doing so, we have the support of 50 million at least in Europe, and at least 400 million Catholics in the world at large. I was glad to find a leading Protestant divine, only a week ago, giving his support to us, and I found a rabbi of the Jews also supporting these Motions. We are concerned not with the question of creed, but with the unifying of the people who believe in one God in the old, and the new Christian, thought. It is high time and right and proper that we should tell the world what we think about these things.
I do not think I can do better than quote a Catholic writer about the position in Poland. I want the people of this country to realise how this infiltration of evil is going on. My purpose is to bring home to the people of this country the power of that evil that is in existence, and to make them aware of the danger that it may come here, as come it surely will if we are not prepared against it. This is what a catholic writer has said:
In Poland, which, for a thousand years, was a Catholic country, where more than 90 per cent. of the people are Catholics, most strongly attached to their faith, the children of Catholics are now being educated and trained, contrary to the wishes of their parents, in the Marxist spirit, which is not only indifferent to religion, but which is directly anti-religious and anti-Christian. The management of the schools hinders by all means, or simply makes it impossible for the young to perform their religious duties, by arranging all sorts of school and athletic events during the time of the religious services.
They are being diverted from their religious duties, from all that is most important in training them in good citizenship, by these devices, by the teaching of gymnastics, and soon, good things in themselves, at the expense of other equally good and even more important things. The writer goes on:
Catholics have been deprived of the possibility of belonging to religious organisations, which have all been disbanded long ago. On the other hand, such conditions have been created that young Catholics who do not want to find themselves deprived of the possibility of continuing their studies and of professional

work find themselves under moral pressure to enlist in the Polish Youth League, though they are aware that this organisation stands on the basis of aetheism and materialism.
I am convinced that without religion, without good moral fibre in men and women, we shall never be able to be good citizens, we shall never even have any loyalty to a Government constitutionally set up. We cannot have loyalty to usurping Governments, and democracy is a farce if it believes in ideas of this kind or supports that kind of revolution in the name of bringing about the betterment of the people. I am one of those who believe that the first rule comes from God, and I believe we are subject to authority. Now, in this House, late in this part of the Session, we are able to give this message to the people of this country and of the world at large. It is a good thing that in this forum we can say these things. There are many parts of the world where anyone who said these things would suffer imprisonment or banishment.
I ask every Member of Parliament to support the Motions. I say, frankly, that I want sympathy for this cause. I want people to think about it. I want action. I want from the Government not only sympathy, but action when we return after the Recess. I want to see the dynamic action which we used to show to the world. I want it to be understood that this brief discussion of one-and-a-half hours today is not the end of the subject. Until this battle is ended, until we are able to get redress of our grievances, until we are able to feel that the body politic in England is willing to give us suport, we shall not be satisfied. I thank the Government for the sympathy which they have extended to us, but I want a little more than sympathy; I want action.
I thank the House for listening to me; my words are most sincere. I feel very deeply and intensely with my co-religionists in other parts of the world about the sufferings in Poland. Poland played so great a part in the war, and I should like to pay a tribute to her. When the port of Liverpool was in such danger the Polish airmen flew for eight nights, with our gallant airmen; for eight nights they were in the skies protecting our citizens. I wish to pay my tribute to them and, in speaking on their behalf today, I may in a small measure


be able to repay them for the great help they gave us in saving lives in the City of Liverpool. I am pleased to be the second hon. Member to speak on this subject today.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Hollis: The facts of this case have been so clearly stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan) that it is certainly not necessary for me to detain the House for more than a minute or two.
As hon. Members know, I happen to be a Roman Catholic, but we Catholics appreciate that the great majority of hon. Members and the great majority of the inhabitants of this country are not of our persuasion. I am sure I speak for all my co-religionists when I say how deep is the debt of gratitude which we feel to my hon. and learned Friend, and also to hon. Members in every part of the House who are not of our communion and numerous people throughout the country, for the sympathy which they have shown with the sufferings of our co-religionists in Poland.
At the same time, I fully appreciate that it could not be expected that this Government or this House should consider it its duty to support a purely Catholic cause simply because it was a Catholic cause. As hon. Members have truly said, however, the additional devotion of this country is a devotion to the cause of freedom at large, and it is to that appeal which we have always acceded in the best moments of our history. Happily to say, together with many other unhappy events, in the past years there have been many examples of a growing sense between religious denominations of the necessity of supporting one another in the case of attack upon the common faith of everybody. There has been no more moving passage in modern history than the passage in which 700 leaders of the Jewish community, immediately after the close of the war, went to thank the Pope for what they called the magnificent service which he had rendered to protect the Jews from the persecution under the Hitler régime. It is in that spirit that this debate is being conducted.
I noticed that when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland put down his Motion, a number of hon. Members, of whom I think the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) was one, put down an Amendment calling attention to and deploring the punishment without proper trial of certain individuals in Spain. I know nothing about that case, but if those hon. Members put down that Motion in a responsible spirit, which I have not the smallest reason to doubt they did, it is entirely proper that, if there is injustice, they should make their protests against it. The fact that there is injustice in one part of the world does not make it right that we should not make a protest against an injustice in another part of the world.
Whatever the merits of the case, however, it seems somewhat different from the case which we are considering today, for at any rate two reasons. First, their protest was a protest against political action and not a protest against religious persecution, which happens to be the topic which we are discussing today. A further reason why I think it was a slightly different situation is this: it is our duty and task to make protests against injustice and tyranny in any quarter of the world wherever we have a proper opportunity to make that protest an effective one—as the hon. Member, for Liverpool, Scotland indicated, we have that duty to all men—but in this country, by an accident of circumstances, we have a special duty to do everything which lies in our power to see that a régime of justice comes about in Poland.
Poland, after all, is a country which should be especially dear to us since it was under our guarantee that all the ghastly events of suffering of recent years have come to Poland. This is not the moment to enter into any sort of political discussion as to whether Governments should have pursued a different policy in the past or what would be the best policy for Governments to pursue at the moment to try to restore freedom to Poland, although if, when he replies to the debate, my hon. Friend can give us some concrete examples of things which the British Government can usefully do at the moment, we shall be most grateful to him and most interested to hear of them.
Apart from decisions of what can be done in concrete fact, I feel that whatever differences of opinion and whatever similarity of opinions we may have, there can be no Englishman who is not in profound discomfort of soul when he reflects upon the present position of the Poles after the last war. We guaranteed that Poland should have freedom. That does not in any sense mean that it is any business of ours whether this or that politician should govern them, but it means that there cannot be an ease in our conscience until there is a situation where the Poles are able to lead a generally free life and above all a life of the free practice of religion which is so dear to them.
If my hon. Friend can give us some concrete encouragement about these things—I do not know whether he can or not—which Her Majesty's Government can do we shall be delighted, but even if there is not very much concrete which can come out of the debate it may be profoundly important that the House and the country and the Polish Government are reminded as a result of this debate that the people of this country are profoundly at dis-ease with the present condition of tyranny in Poland.

11.59 a.m.

Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that every hon. Member will find himself in cordial agreement with the case which has been advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan). As one who is not a Catholic but belongs to what Edmund Burke described as the "very dissidence of dissent," I want to express my support for the views which they have put forward.
I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House for very long, but it would be wrong if it were thought that it was merely the authoritarian churches in this country which supported the views which have so far been put forward. I want to make this quite plain: that those of us who stand for religious toleration everywhere in the world have by no means less urgent feelings about these cases where political and religious persecution has been carried to the extent which hon. Members have indicated.
After all, the fight for religious toleration in this country was a very long one.

There had been in the past many Acts on the Statute Book which none of us would now regard with anything other than detestation. In fact, the House was so pernickety at one time that when it passed an Act of toleration it happened to exclude my particular denomination from its beneficient purposes. It was not until 1871 that the House even thought that people who could not subscribe to the tenets of the established church should be allowed to go to the two ancient universities of the country.
I merely say that, not for the sake of reviving old controversies, but to point out how essential it is that those of us who believe in religious toleration should understand how tender and modern a plant it actually is and how essential it is to stand up for it wherever it may be assailed. I hope that wherever in the world and whenever in the world the State attempts by the secular arm to stand between men and God we in this country will always protest.
Wherever persecution may be in the world today we believe that the atmosphere of generous toleration and the recognition of the right of the individual soul that we have achieved in this country should be asked for in the places where it has not yet been conceded.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth): I only wish to make one point and not to repeat what has been said. I, also, am not sure what a Government can do about this further than making protests, but I think it important that the Foreign Office and those who have responsibility for our foreign affairs should bear in mind that, although they may be beset by pressing and immediate political problems in all parts of the world—although they may be wondering what they are to do immediately about Germany in Europe and about the Suez Canal in the Middle East—it would not behoove any Government to ignore the importance of the point that was so ably put by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
If we ignore the real basis of existence either in our home or foreign affairs, if we ignore the rights of man, we do not really deserve to be able to solve the manifold problems with which this country is beset abroad. I hope it will never be necessary for hon. Members to press


this Christian Government to take the strongest possible action immediately that is possible in any case where there is religious persecution in any part of the world.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I wish to add my voice to those who have expressed their detestation of the persecution of Roman Catholics in Poland and particularly of their distinguished Primate. I would abhor the persecution of any religious denomination.
I am sure I am speaking on behalf of my fellow Jews of the faith in this great country, and throughout the world, in expressing to Roman Catholics our deepest sympathy and fellow feeling with them in the great sufferings through which they are passing at the present time. I belong to a people and a faith which have been persecuted throughout the centuries. Perhaps it may be a warning to the Polish Government in regard to their persecution of Roman Catholics in Poland that, just as the Jews have stood at the graves of their persecutors, so Roman Catholics will stand at the grave of their persecutors in Poland. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House for having arranged to debate this business and not just leave the matter as the subject of a pious Motion on the Order Paper.
I feel that perhaps this situation in Poland can be best brought home to the people of this country by way of contrast. We know that leaders of the English Church—the late Bishop of Birmingham, the Archbishop of York and others—have expressed views which have differed from the expressed views of the Government of the day, and they have every right to do so. It is as if those archbishops and bishops, because they disagreed with the views of the Government of the day, were put into prison by that Government. Such a situation would be fantastic and unthinkable in this country. Perhaps it is not sufficiently recognised by enough people how fortunate we are to live in a country where there is tolerance and where men and women can practise their faith without let or hindrance. I, personally, love every inch of the sacred soil of this great

country because of its great toleration and love of fair play.
I hope that the present regime in Poland, which have decided to subordinate the Church to the totalitarian State to such an extent as to deny freedom of conscience, will mend its ways. If they do not, I hope that Her Majesty's Government—true to the British temperament for toleration will leave the Polish Government in no doubt of the views of hon. Members of this House and the overwhelming views of the people of this country and the British Commonwealth of every denomination about what is happening in Poland.
As other hon. Members should have an opportunity of expressing their point of view, I will conclude by saying that we could not have concluded our Parliamentary labours at this season any better than by proclaiming our belief in the freedom of conscience. We hope that the day will soon dawn when, as a result of representations which we hope Her Majesty's Government will lose no time in making to the Polish authorities, freedom of conscience will be restored to Poland so that she might occupy the great place in the comity of nations that we wish for her.

12.9 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I only wish to put a few points to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. First, could he let us know whether he has any information about where the Polish Cardinal is? It is my information, although I do not know whether it is correct, that he has already been taken to Moscow. If that is the case it may be that not only to the Polish Government but also to the Russian Government would it be proper for our Government to make some form of protest.
As we are shortly to have a meeting of the four Powers, it might be appropriate if the Prime Minister or somebody else could bring up this matter and have it discussed at that time. In the last century, many opportunities were taken of protesting about similar conditions in different parts of the world. Those protests were made by the Government. They were done in those days also by the Queen, who had many relations on thrones in Europe at the time. I am sure that there are many ways that could be


found today, through different political parties, to get in touch with influential people even behind the Iron Curtain.
It is not only the Roman Catholics who are being attacked in this systematic persecution. The same persecution has been going on in the Baltic States, throughout Poland and in Roumania, and in the Ukraine also, where there have been many difficult cases which have often been forgotten.
It is not only the Government that can do things on this occasion, but Parliament itself. That is why I am grateful to you. Mr. Speaker, for giving us this opportunity of debate today. Parliament can do things because Parliament can be heard throughout the world and behind the Iron Curtain; and there are many there who look to us and to England more than to any other country.
I should like to tell a story about the Cardinal Primate of Hungary, relating to just before he was taken prisoner. He visited this country and happened to be in Westminster Cathedral and saw the chapel of Saint John Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester. Although it is now 400 years since the time of Henry VIII, Saint John Fisher was the last person of that standing in the whole of Europe to be arrested and tried in the same way that these things are happening in Eastern Europe today. It was in the same way that the Pope has made cardinals of those who are being persecuted today that he made Bishop Fisher, when he was already a prisoner, a cardinal at that time.
That greatly impressed Cardinal Mindszenty. It was actually the feast day of the Bishop of Rochester and he said Mass at his chapel. Later, when Cardinal Mindszenty was taken prisoner, his chaplain wrote to the Cardinal at Westminster Cathedral and said that the Cardinal remembered that occasion and was greatly strengthened by what went on in England in those days 400 years ago and the knowledge of how today, after all that persecution, we were able to have our religious freedom and to speak for others in other parts of the world; this was a great comfort to him. As a result, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholics here have approached the Vatican to make Saint John Fisher the Patron Saint of all those who are being persecuted by States at the present time.
If, as I believe, those persecuted people are looking to England almost more than to any other country, it is our bounden duty not only for the Government to do all that they can, to be as little materialistic as possible, and to stick up for our principles as much as we can abroad; it is also our job as back benchers to bring these matters forward as much as we possibly can. We are being looked to for support by those behind the Iron Curtain.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: The House, the country and the Christian faiths throughout the world are, I am sure, indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) for initiating this debate today. I was very pleased indeed with the very glowing and worthy tribute which he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan). After hearing my hon. Friend this morning, I feel perfectly sure that every section of the Christian faith in his constituency will be proud of him for the speech he has made.
It should be made clear that the all-party Motion on the Order Paper represents the strongest possible views of the feelings of Members on all sides of the House against not only the persecution, but the restriction, of Christian worship in certain parts of the world. It is very appropriate that one of the Christmas Adjournment debates should be upon a matter which deeply affects the spiritual side of life. If this short debate sends out a message of hope and comfort to those imprisoned for their religious beliefs, or if it helps to bring about a greater measure of tolerance, it will have been well worth while.
I speak as a Methodist, conscious of the fight which Nonconformists have had to establish their right to freedom of religious thought and worship in the days long ago. The persecution of the Catholics in Poland and elsewhere fills all of us with a righteous indignation, and we would wish that the Foreign Secretary would find some means of conveying to the Governments concerned our most urgent plea for the release of all those who are in prison and that they should be allowed to administer to the spiritual needs of their Christian brethren.
This debate cannot be confined to the persecution of Catholics alone. It is one in which the wider issue of religious freedom throughout the world is involved. One of the tragedies of dictatorship in all its forms, whether Fascist or Communist, is that having enslaved the bodies of its victims, it then seeks to destroy the spiritual force and the very soul of man. The older we grow and the closer our contacts with all the problems of life, we become more conscious than ever of the vital importance of spiritual values. To destroy these values, which bring out the very best within us, is to destroy life itself. The whole foundation of our Christian faith is based upon the brotherhood of man. It is by the acceptance of this faith, in the fullest possible means, that all we treasure in world society can be preserved.

12.18 p.m.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: it is most significant and a fine thing that such a debate can take place in this House today. It is remarkable to note the diversity of religious beliefs which we all hold. I speak as a member of the Established Church of this country, but the unanimity with which we speak on this subject of persecution is notable and noteworthy. Let there be no doubt in our minds that evil things are being done in Europe today. They are things which, thank God, we have passed out of in this country many years ago.
It was some years ago that I had the honour of being the guest of Cardinal Mindszenty, in Hungary. I was impressed by the fact that he was a fine Christian gentleman. We never at any time talked politics, but we did on many occasions talk of those things of the spirit and the mind which are far more important than any matters of daily political life. We in this country are trying—I think, absolutely sincerely—to see what is the right course to take. We believe that a man has the right to be, if he so wishes, an atheist and even a fool, and we do not believe that anyone has the right to compel his fellow man to take a course which he cannot in his own conscience follow.
Persecution and toleration, as, curiously enough, a Russian once said, are indivisible. You cannot apply a set of laws in Poland and another set in another

country. They must apply throughout the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) talked of the possibility of persecution taking place in Spain. Of that I know nothing, but if there be such persecution, even as it is in Poland, so, in Spain, it is devilish. We can draw no distinction between the two.
Today, I am sad and unhappy; sad because of what is taking place, and unhappy because of my importance in the matter. There seems to be little I can do. I earnestly hope that if my hon. Friend has any suggestion, or can hold out any hope, he will have the support of every hon. Member of the House.

12.21 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I shall not make a speech, because I wish to allow the maximum amount of time for the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to reply to the debate. But I hope to do what not one of the other nine speakers has tried to do, and that is to offer some practical advice to the hon. Gentleman.
Her Majesty's Government, through their representatives at the United Nations, might consider the setting up of an ad hoc committee to study religious persecution in Poland, or even in Spain or anywhere it may take place. There is an admirable precedent for such a committee. The House will recollect that there is, or was, in existence an ad hoc committee on forced labour of which the chairman was that very distinguished Indian, Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar. That committee did admirable work and produced an exhaustive report of more than 600 pages which gave all the relevant information on the subject. I think, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government might consider setting up a similar committee to investigate religious persecution everywhere.

12.23 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): The House is grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan) for having persuaded you, Mr. Speaker, to provide us with the opportunity to debate this subject. It is difficult to find an occasion to raise these issues, which all hon. Members will agree


are the fundamental issues of the life of tolerance which we like to live in this country, and no better subject for debate could have been found at this pre-Christmas period. Nothing has been said by any hon. Member which has not the fullest agreement of the Government.
This topic is one extending far beyond the confines of a debate in this House. It is of interest, not just to the Catholics whose problems we are debating, but to all Christians, all men of good will and even of the monotheistic religions mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland in his stirring speech. Throughout the whole free world and beyond the Iron Curtain people will, no doubt, hear about what has been said in this debate and will regret that religious persecution should have come again to these territories.
This House is continuing in the rôle it has played so often in the past by enabling these great issues of fundamental human importance to be debated. Every hon. Member who has spoken has been of a different faith, with the exception of three who are Catholics, and all have been accorded the chance of exhibiting the unanimity with which the House regards these problems. Perhaps we spend too much time disagreeing and so do not often get the opportunity of showing that we are united in expressing our horror of such things as are happening in Poland today.
There are certain shortcomings, or apparent shortcomings, in the effectiveness of diplomatic protests. But do not let us underestimate what can be done by public expressions such as have been made here today. I have not much time, and I do not propose to embroider the picture. But this is the ninth Christmas since the war, and I suppose that today there are more refugees, more oppressed people, more unhappiness and despair and more religious persecution than ever before in history in the Communist controlled territories in the Far East and in East and Central Europe.
The particular aspect we are discussing today is the persecution of Catholics in Poland, and particularly the case of Cardinal Wyszynski, the Primate of Poland. As several hon. Members have pointed out, this is but one aspect of Christian and religious persecution going on throughout the Communist dominated

world, and today we are suffering one of the greatest setbacks to religious toleration which we have ever experienced. Various aspects of this problem have been raised in the years since the war, and many statements have been made by different British Governments. I have not time to give the full facts, but I think they have been before the House, and hon. Members are only too well aware of them. We have all received letters from constituents protesting strongly.
Ever since the war there has been an attempt by the Polish Government to root out the Roman Catholic Church, and to obtain control of what is the last stronghold of Roman Catholicism behind the Iron Curtain, by the suppression of its publications, by attempts to suppress its traditional influence in educational institutions, by misusing the vexed question of the western territories and by attempting to divorce the Church of Poland from the authority of the Papacy.
The first five years of this attempt did not succeed so well as the Communists had hoped. In 1950, they made another agreement and, needless to say, it was not honoured. The Government have broken both the spirit and the letter of it. That led Cardinal Wyszynski to make the protest he did in the autumn of this year. After a month or so an attack was launched on the Bishop of Kielce, Monseigneur Kaczmarek, who has been arrested and tried. It was not until 26th September, following certain allegations, that Cardinal Wyszynski was arrested, but I have no information for the House about what has happened to him. I have not heard, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) that he had been taken to Moscow. If I obtain any information about that I will communicate with my hon. Friend.
The immediate objective of the Polish Government is, obviously, the severance of relations between the Vatican and the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Poland. It is some acknowledgment of the weakness of their campaign that they have to go to the extent of arresting and taking away the most popular and revered figure in Poland. The fact that they have done this without any reference to any authority in Poland shows the extent to which they are prepared to fly in the face of public opinion in that deeply religious country.
Ever since this new campaign started in the autumn of this year the Polish Government have been attempting to set up a hierarchy subservient to it. It is with great regret that I have to inform the House, on the latest information we have, that only yesterday the Polish hierarchy took the oath of allegiance to the Polish Republic. I do not believe that there is any reason to think that the hierarchy had gone outside the legitimate functions of a religious hierarchy and had opposed the legitimate functions of the Government. All of us in this House must know what this action will mean. Do not let us underrate the significance of yesterday's action in a totalitarian régime.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking on 5th November, used the following words:
In Poland, the Communist régime has arrested the Cardinal Primate and sentenced a bishop to imprisonment on the customary charges of treason and espionage. Successive Governments of this country have expressed their abhorrence of the persecution of religion and the denial of human, rights anywhere in the world, and I hope the Polish Government is in no doubt about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and of public opinion in this country upon these matters."—[Official Report, 5th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 313.]
I take this opportunity of repeating in the strongest terms the abhorrence of Her Majesty's Government of the persecution of religion which my right hon. Friend pointed out.
I have been asked why we do not take more action about this matter at the United Nations. I have noted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). I will certainly follow it up and let him know whether we see any chance of taking successful action along those lines. At present, the situation is as reported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on 6th December, 1952, when he said that the Assembly is entitled to discuss human rights in principle, but the moment it passes beyond those to discuss the internal policies of a particular state on a specific matter it exceeds its competence. As hon. Members on all sides know, this is a most thorny problem at the United Nations today. Again, I was asked why we could not make a protest under the Human Rights clauses of the Peace

Treaties of Central Europe. The answer is that these affect only Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria, which are ex-enemy territories, and do not affect Poland, which was an ally during the last war.
I should like to emphasise what I think certain hon. Members know, that on 19th November the Heads of Missions accredited to the Holy See were received in audience by His Holiness the Pope. On their behalf the doyen of the corps, the Irish Ambassador, expressed sympathy with the Pope in his sorrow over the persecution in Poland. Her Majesty's Chargé ďAffaires was authorised to associate himself with this expression of sympathy.
There are other things we can do outside this House. On 3rd December, as many hon. Members know—in fact, some hon. Members were present—a protest meeting was held at the Albert Hall in the presence of the Apostolic delegates and almost the entire hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales. Cardinal Griffin and General Anders were also present. A resolution was passed in the name of the Roman Catholics of the British Commonwealth condemning the arrest of the Patriarch and the attacks on religious freedom. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to associate themselves with that protest.
Although our time has been cut short a little, we have had a satisfactory number of speeches which show the unanimity of opinion in this House on these issues. I speak with personal feeling, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan), because I served with the Poles practically throughout the war. I was in Poland when the German-Russian agreement started the conflagration. I saw them in Angers and in the Middle East on the first long-distance flights from this country to Poland, and I lived with them through the agony of Warsaw, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has mentioned in the last extracts from his final volume of war memoirs. I was with them when we had to fly from Italy—one of the costly operations of the war—to try to relieve those Poles who had risen in Warsaw in an endeavour to help the advancing Russian troops, and who were left in the lurch and so many of whom were killed.
Therefore, like many hon. Members in different parts of the House, we think of our friends at this season of the year and we watch with abhorrence what is going on in Poland. When the day comes when Poland is free again, and religion is free once more in that country, I am sure that the men we are honouring today will be among the heroes of the Polish future.

ROADS (IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION)

12.36 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: First I want to congratulate and thank all who have taken part in the proceedings this morning. I was brought up to believe that punctuality is a mark of efficiency, and I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Making allowances for the interruptions, the House has been very efficient in working to time this morning, and to that extent hon. Members deserve credit.
On behalf of a large number of local authorities and of people living in industrial centres, I want to raise the question of the need for commencing the construction of national motor roads, and to ask for a start to be made in 1954 on the London—Glasgow motor road, and especially for a start on the section between Stafford and Lancaster. I want to emphasise this latter with all the energy at my command. I ask also for a large loan to finance the construction of the national motor roads and for the formation of a national motor roads construction corporation by several of the largest civil engineering concerns pooling a proportion of their capital equipment for the purpose of making our country efficient and to save life and limb.
During the war it was acknowledged, even by America, that our civil engineers could construct aerodromes quicker than any others in the world. Today we are asking that the Minister, who has great energy and capacity and now has great administrative machinery at his disposal, should use his energy and capacity for the purpose of applying to the construction of modern roads in peace-time that dynamism which we showed in war-time in constructing aerodromes and airfields.
Is it admitted that this country is in a serious economic condition? If it is, then the time has arrived when the roads of our industrial areas should receive reasonable priority. Is it still admitted that our exports are paramount? If so then the industrial areas, which are maintaining us all by their exports, and are therefore contributing most to our maintenance, should have priority. Is it still admitted that we need efficiency in industry? Everyone concerned in industry admits this and is working to introduce the maximum efficiency.
We also need efficiency outside industry so that we can have the maximum speed on our roads with a minimum of cost. We owe it to the industrial centres in particular to introduce the greatest possible efficiency to enable our people to be transported from their homes to their work and back again as quickly as possible. It is also essential that freight should be carried on the roads as efficiently and as cheaply as possible. Do we want to reduce road accidents or are we just playing about with the subject? If we do, fundamental action is required, and it is on that point that I want to speak.
I challenge fundamentally the Government's policy on the roads and the views of those hon. Members, who are not here today, who give priority to other areas over the industrial areas. It is time that we had this problem in correct perspective and I want to place as many facts as possible on record so that those who consider this debate later can see our objectives in that perspective. I plead in particular for the industrial areas. The Minister rightly reminded us the other day that London was not Britain. The facts are that 5 million people live within a radius of five miles of Manchester, 2,225,000 live in the remaining area within a 10 miles radius and 11 million live within a 20 miles radius of Manchester. On average there are approximately 500 people living in every square mile in Great Britain, 600 in every square mile in South Wales, 900 in Glasgow, 1,300 in London and 2,130 in every square mile in Lancashire.
Thanks to the courtesy of the chairman of Leyland Motors, I have been provided with a chart dealing with road accidents. The chairman is a public-spirited man who could never have reached his present


high position had he not been efficient, and it is well known throughout the world that efficiency is stamped on everything produced by his company. So sick is that company at the things seen on the roads of that mighty industrial area where the works are situated that it has expressed its indignation in a chart, which I shall produce later to the House. The standards of our roads are mid-20th century standards and in proportion to population the number of accidents in Lancashire is double the number for the rest of the country.
It was our forefathers in the industrial areas who were tortured and who suffered in the Industrial Revolution. Now we are working to produce the maximum efficiency in industry but it is the descendants of those people who are, in the main, losing their lives on the roads. The figures are appalling. That is why I acted as I did last week. I listened very carefully to the statement made by the Minister of Transport last week and I realised what was going on. Those who care most dare most, and it was with these facts at the back of my mind and with a desire to speak on behalf of the people among whom I live and work that I took the action that I did. Mr. Speaker found himself in as great a difficulty as anyone last week. Only one who cared and dared most and who had the courage to take the necessary action enabled us to consider this subject for two hours this morning instead of for the few minutes that were permissible under the Rules of the House the other day.
It was the facts to which I have referred, and further facts which I shall give to the House, that made me indignant. The road accident chart which I received from the chairman of Leyland Motors last night reveals a terrifying picture. It has to be seen, studied and analysed to be believed. In six and three-quarter years within the area covered by the chart there were 4,010 casualties, and 166 of the accidents were fatal. The average distance between the site of each accident was 26 yards. Those are staggering figures.
I saw the face of Mr. Speaker light up the other day when reference was made to something which gave him great pleasure and satisfaction, the birth of his grandson. I have seen the Minister of

Transport in the company of his son. The Minister worships that son and will do all he possibly can for him. That applies to most parents. Every one of the red spots on this chart which I produce to the House represents tragedy and the homes of broken-hearted parents and relatives.
So that the Minister may realise the situation and so that those who do not accept my argument may be convinced, I should like to quote extracts from one or two leading articles which have been devoted recently to the Minister's statement on road policy. I quote first from the "North Staffordshire Sentinel" of 9th December, 1953. It says:
…the outlay envisaged by the present Government, of a Treasury contribution of £50 million spread over three years, is miserly.
I should like to make it quite clear that no matter what Government happened to be in power this is the kind of speech that I would be making this morning if there were no fundamental change in our road policy. The leading article continues:
Instead of a bold, realistic approach to this ever-increasing problem of the roads the Government offers a perfunctory 'make do and mend' scheme. For the time being they have abandoned all idea of providing the country with the modern motor roads which are becoming absolutely essential not only for road safety but for the movement of commerce.
Here is an extract from the "Manchester Evening Chronicle":
Nowhere in this country is the roads problem more acute than in the North-West. The proposals for removing bottlenecks, mentioned by the Minister of Transport this week, will remain in the blueprint stage for a few years yet.
The newspaper was speaking on behalf of an area where the number of road casualties is two and a half times the average for the whole country. The "Manchester Guardian" said:
The Government's 'extended programme of major road improvements' does not even justify its title, let alone the hopes that had been pinned to it… A bold decision to reconstruct the main North-South and East-West routes serving Great Britain would pay dividends for generations; and it would also help to solve many local problems, by diverting through traffic from the narrow streets of towns which lie athwart our existing highways.
We welcome the Minister's proposal to deal with the Stafford-Stoke road, but we should like to have from him further information about it. Is it correct that


the improvement only involves a length of road from Strongford Road to Trentham on the A.34? When will the very dangerous road through Trent Vale be dealt with and by-passed? When will the new motor road to by-pass Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme be begun and finished? It is admitted that, day and night, the main road between London, Manchester and the North is one of the busiest and most congested in the country. Hundreds of mothers in our constituencies whose children have to cross these roads daily to school are suffering great anxiety, and we ought not to be complacent while this situation exists.
I want the Minister to take particular note of this. Until the new motor road to by-pass Trent Vale is completed, can the lowest possible speed limit which he has authority to apply be imposed between Hanford and the North Staffordshire infirmary and can we have daily police patrols on that length of road between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.? If the Minister does not accept my suggestion, will he consult my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who lives on that main road. My hon. Friend has raised the matter with the police several times, but, unfortunately, according to the information which he and others have given me, no action has been taken. I am forced to raise the matter publicly in the House because it is time some action was taken about that deadly road.
A new road is planned from London through Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester, and Lancashire to Glasgow. This road is one of the most urgently required. It is easy to talk about it. I have had sufficient experience of life to enable me to retain my faith and confidence in main principles and to appreciate that at the same time, allowance must be made for individuals, especially those who bear responsibility. What I ask is that super priority over everything else should be given to the main road between Stafford and Carnforth where the daily casualty rate is two and a half times that of the average for the country. Not a penny more should be spent in London until those areas have had justice.
Can we be told the total expenditure proposed for the area within a 50-mile radius of London and the area within

a 50-mile radius of Manchester? Is it correct that it is proposed to spent £3 million on the Cromwell Road in London? Is it correct that it is proposed to spend £9 million on the Dartford Tunnel? If so, then I plead without any hesitation or compromise that priority over the London area should be given to the needs of Lancashire and to the Barton and Trafford bridges in particular.
We can speak best about the areas which we know and the areas in which we were born. Within a few miles of where I was born are to be found the worst road conditions in the country. That is not the fault of anyone as an individual, and the local authorities all desire to play their part. Between Worsley and Trafford Park, within a length of three miles, in six years there have been 125 accidents including 5 deaths. There are eight terrible bends and three narrow bridges. The Barton Bridge is crossed by 9,600 vehicles every day, and the roadway is only 17 feet wide. On an average the bridge closes 19 times a day to allow vessels to pass on the Manchester Ship Canal. These are the sort of facts which must be faced. It is time we faced up to them, because people in industry are becoming cynical and are saying, "What is the use of having maximum efficiency in industry unless we have maximum efficiency on the roads?"
Several times right hon. Gentleman on both sides of the House have expressed their confidence in Sir Edwin Plowden and men like him. No Socialist can express confidence in Sir Edwin Plowden. If anyone is still prepared to do that, then let him consult the "Financial Times." I believe that it is Sir Edwin and those associated with him, and all Ministers who have accepted their advice who are responsible for the situation that we face today. Fundamentally, the allocation of capital investment during the past six years is responsible for the present situation. I know that an indictment can be built up in respect of the past 50 years. I know that the roads of this country have never caught up with our needs and that is also the case with housing. That is a long and terrible story. However, as a realist I am dealing with the immediate situation, and I say that some of the millions of


pounds that we have spent on rearmament ought to have been devoted to our roads.
I should like answers to the following questions. Is it true that we have spent less on our roads since the end of the war than other countries have spent on theirs? Can we be given the gross investment upon roads in proportion to the national income over a number of years and also the gross investment in fixed capital?
So that I might be informed on this subject, I wrote to a number of surveyors, and I have before me their answers. As an example, I will quote the reply of the surveyor to the Staffordshire County Council. He says:
As you are aware, the action already taken by the Chairman of the County Council, Alderman W. Nevill, O.B.E.. and the Chairman of the County Roads and Bridges Committee, Councillor G. H. Philpott, in connection with this vital question has taken it from a purely political issue and given it the full support of all parties.
I do not know why he put that in, but, still, he did.
Here is an extract from an enclosure in that letter:
The first essential is to determine a short-term policy, say a five-year programme, for the widening and improvement of the carriageways of all the through routes, some of which are carrying over 40,000 tons per day, the minimum width of these carriageways to be 30-feet three-lane construction with footpaths in and around built-up areas and horizontal and vertical alignments to give effective visibility.
The enclosure contains references to local and national factors. It goes on:
In addition to the shorter five-year policy, the construction of certain sections of the motorway for immediate use is vital if the question of the inadequate road system of the county is to be dealt with practically and realistically.
That is Staffordshire. It goes on:
The first major project should be the Stafford outer by-pass, estimated to cost £1,500,000. This scheme will eliminate the present dangerous traffic conditions in this area and at the same time substantially improve the flow of the heavy concentrations of both through and local traffic….The Staffordshire County Council are most concerned and disappointed at the meagre sums likely to be allocated to the county for the improvement of the essential traffic routes…. A date to be given for the Stafford motorway by-pass and some indication of the dates the Minister has in mind for dealing with Newcastle inner by-pass, Stone by-pass, Rugeley by-pass, Tam-worth by-pass and Lichfield by-pass, or

alternatively when he proposes to carry out the construction of the London route motorway through Staffordshire….
It is because I am reinforced by expert opinion of that kind that I have made the kind of contribution I have today. Stoke-on-Trent is a developing mining area. Our output is to be greatly increased, and we are exporting pottery, which is the admiration of everybody, all over the world. If we are expected to produce the maximum of results with the maximum efficiency, then we are entitled to expect that efficiency shall not finish at the pottery, at the pit or at the door of the works.
In Leylands, we are building the finest motor vehicles in the world. Many years ago some Russians said to me that they would buy as many Leyland motors as they possibly could because, although they cost more initially, the extra cost was recouped in a very short time by the saving in maintenance costs. At Eccles, we build the Gardner engine, which speaks for itself. In Trafford Park, 60,000 people travel daily into and out of that bottleneck. The conditions there have to be seen to be believed.
What I am asking for today and many of my hon. Friends who are well-informed about conditions in these industrial areas will support me in this—is that super-priority should be given to these large industrial areas. It is time that the Minister, the Ministry and the Cabinet re-examined the position and looked at it from the point of view of the needs of our industrial areas, so that a fundamental change may be brought about and so that we in our time may take steps to build new motor roads and thus save the lives of many of our people in the future.

1.3 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law: At the beginning of the powerful and sincere speech to which we have just listened, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said that it was his intention to put the tremendous problem of road development into proper perspective. But he ended his speech by saying that the schemes in his own constituency and his own neighbourhood must have super-priority over everything else. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite entitled to do that, but, if he will allow me to say so, that is really not


putting the problem of road development into proper perspective.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am quite willing to listen to anyone criticising what I said, but I would point out that I was speaking for a large industrial area of Lancashire and Staffordshire.

Mr. Law: Yes, an area with which the hon. Gentleman is most closely associated.
I still maintain that that is not putting the matter into proper perspective, because there must be other industrial areas which have equal priority. To get this problem into perspective, one does not have to balance one area against the other. One has to balance the claims of road development against all the other claims being made upon the resources at the disposal of the Government.
I quite agree—and I do not suppose there is any hon. Member in the House, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who does not—that the road system in this country is hopelessly inadequate, hopelessly old-fashioned and hopelessly uneconomic, but we cannot, especially at this time, have everything we want at one and the same moment. We want to clear away the slums, to build new houses, to increase our exports, and to improve and develop our Health Service. We must maintain a balance between all the demands made upon the resources of the nation.
The hon. Gentleman said—and I readily believe him—that he would have made exactly the same speech whatever Government were in power. The hon. Gentleman is always forthright, but I think there is one very great distinction between this Government and the last Government. That distinction is that whenever any problem of this kind arose, the late Government always announced, and developed in speeches, a tremendous scheme which would give us every kind of advantage within 12 months at the outside, but then nothing ever happened except another economic crisis. The present Government do not act in that way. They produce something which is modest and practicable and which can be made effective. When it has been made effective, they then take the next step towards securing the great scheme.
I sincerely believe that the statement made by my right hon. Friend 10 days ago was not inadequate when we consider the question of roads in relation to all the other problems which beset us. I believe that if we consider that statement against the background and in the context in which my right hon. Friend was speaking, it represents a notable start to solve a very difficult and tremendously important problem. But, having said that, I must say that there was one thing in my right hon. Friend's statement which literally shook me. It was not something which he said, but something which he omitted to say, and, but for the intervention of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I believe that I would have been shocked into speechlessness by this terrible omission in my right hon. Friend's statement. After developing his plan, my right hon. Friend said:
These proposals, Sir, do not include provision for such major and desirable projects as the Forth and Severn Bridges."—[Official Report, 8th December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1823.]
He said nothing more about bridges.
Has my right hon. Friend never heard of the Humber Bridge? Is he not aware that a project to build a bridge across the Humber went through both Houses of Parliament more than 20 years ago, and was only postponed because there was a General Election at that time? The fact of the matter is that Hull, which is one of our most important ports, and one on which we depend both for exports and imports, is exceedingly badly served from the point of view of transport because of its geographical position. One day—and the sooner the better—either a bridge or a tunnel will have to be built across the Humber in the interests not only of Hull, but of the whole of the country's exporting industry.
I am not saying that the Humber Bridge must have super-priority over everything else, because, quite clearly, much must be done before we get down to a project of that kind. Indeed, I think it could be argued that such a project ought to be left until there is some sign of a recession in trade, that it ought to be left as a pump-priming operation. Granted the difficulty and the fact that there must, in the nature of things, be some delay, it appears to me, to my constituents and to the city and port of Hull that this was something which was


not in the mind of my right hon. Friend for a single moment.
I ask my right hon. Friend to lookup the records to see how far this project got 25 years ago, how important it was then considered to be, and to ask himself whether, since that time, any circumstances have intervened to make it any less important today. Even though I do not except that the Minister can promise very much now I hope it will be put on his list of important projects.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I do not wish to encroach for more than a few minutes on the time available because I know there are other Members who may wish to put national or local points of view.
My first point is that we pay for the roads whether we use them or not. The£50 million that the Minister is granting, while it may be good in itself, is only a palliative, because we know from statistics issued by the British Road Federation that we are already £90 million in arrears. Will the Government look at the problem again and further road policy in next year's Budget?
The roads are as much a social service as are housing and education. If we accept Kipling's bon mot that transport is civilisation then there can be no adequate civilisation without adequate road and transport systems. All through Britain, particularly in London and in towns like Stoke-on-Trent, we are suffering from what I call modern parking disease. The paralysis of our cities is a tragic waste of money. We have the most congested roads in the world. Great Britain has about 18 vehicles per mile of road: America, 17; Belgium, 16; Holland, 9: Switzerland, 7; and Italy, 6. Taking the Class I and II roads together, however, we have 106 vehicles per mile moving over those roads.
In terms of money the result of this parking disease and paralysis of movement costs the country, on vehicles alone, £60 million a year. We lose £26 million on lost time on the roads;£12 million on fuel—it was even more when we were importing more dollar petrol; on tyres and rubber, £3 million; on repair of vehicles, £9 million, and, in support of my hon. Friend's point about accidents,

through insurance alone the cost is £10 million a year. Those figures, which are from a reliable source, are calculated on 1946 prices, because I have not had time to recast them into terms of present-day cost. Even if we see our way to spend the money necessary it will take a long time to solve the problem, but it will be an investment which will give a bountiful reward.
Another comparison can be drawn from capital investment. The railways had £218 million of capital investment between 1945 and 1952; airways, £69 million; coal production, £152 million; gas, £177 million; electricity, £676 million, and manufacturing industry had £2,237 million of capital invested between 1946 and 1952. The roads—a paltry £43 million.
I have argued before that the Minister of Defence himself should take an interest in British roadways. We talk of making Britain safe from a strategic point of view, but it would be absolute chaos—in a mid-20th century war, which, God forbid, we should ever have—if we had to move people from, and bring forces into London at the same time on our inadequate roadways.
Lastly, cannot something be done about Britain's canals, which snuggle, unused, in the heart of the Welsh and English counties? When we travel by train we see miles of beautiful waterways. Cannot we do something to co-ordinate those canals and undertake research to find a powerful little tugboat though not so fast as to wash away the banks? Is there not need for capital investment on the canals in conjunction with the roadways? I hope that the Minister will not consider canals an anachronism. I do ask the Minister to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, in the next Budget, the problem of capital investment in British roadways.

1.15 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I commend to the Minister the use of the toll road method which has been so successful in the United States. I will not develop the argument, because I wish to be brief. I know my right hon. Friend is aware of it, and there is much to be said for it. Neither we nor our constituents want more taxes or more rates so let us beware about asking for enormous developments here, there and


everywhere which, along with all the nation's other commitments, probably could not be paid for.
I wish to ask the Minister to give further consideration to a local matter affecting my constituency. At Lancaster there is a bridge—Skerton Bridge—with two main roads coming up to it. There are, therefore, usually four lines of traffic trying to cross it but it can only take one line in each direction. It is a bottleneck, and anyone who travels to Morecambe or to the Lake District from the south or south-east will find, from time to time, a queue one, two, three or even five miles long waiting to cross.
Would the Minister consider putting that bridge a little higher in his list of priorities? It is not only a question of visitors' access to Morecambe and Heysham and to other beautiful towns of the Lake District, but the business of Barrow has also to be taken into account. When looking again at this problem will the Minister give further consideration to this particular bottleneck, because I think it is a very important matter?

1.18 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I wish to make a special point about the North-East. We welcome the Minister's statement—any statement is better than none, however inadequate it may be. We welcome the fact that he is taking some action, but we absolutely fail to understand how he has come to overlook the North-East entirely. In his first list the nearest place to the North-East is Doncaster Mill Bridge; in his second list, Sinderby Bridge. This has upset the whole of the North-East, regardless of politics.
The Minister will see that his North-East colleagues have put down a Motion, and I think they should have been here this morning to press the case, along with those of us representing other constituencies in the North-East. We have received representations from the Durham and the Northumberland County Councils, who are upset at the total lack of consideration for their problems shown by the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to emphasise two points in particular. We are a Development Area. That means that our industrial output today is far higher than it was before the war. As a Member representing a constituency in a Development Area, I

should like to point out that one of the factors which deter new firms going into Development Areas—and, after ail, they are being persuaded very often to go oat of their traditional areas—is the question of transport. I have argued, and will continue to argue, the case for differential freights to assist firms going into Development Areas, but in any case transport is a large element in determing whether firms go into Development Areas. For that reason, not only the North-East but Development Areas as a whole are entitled to special consideration from the right hon. Gentleman.
The other consideration I would mention briefly is the project of the Tyne Tunnel. This is a matter to which I hope the Minister will refer when he replies to the debate. I believe that there was an understanding that this tunnel would be next in priority to the Dartford Tunnel, and it was generally understood that the shields and equipment would move up from the Thames to the Tyne. It appears from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that we have lost that priority. If that is so, it will be a serious blow to the North-East.
Having called the Minister's attention to the feeling in the North-East about this special project, I will say no more except to tell him that he must expect in the near future urgent and strong representations from the local authorities in the North-East and from everyone concerned about the industrial prosperity of the North-East.

1.22 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: Like all those who have spoken this morning, I intend to be brief in my remarks as I know there are several other hon. Members who hope to speak.
I want to emphasise a few points which I feel, have not been stressed quite enough. I am sure that during the course of the last few weeks we have all received a report issued by the National Road Transport Federation listing the improvements which they think ought to be made. The stupendous fact quoted in the report is the total cost which they estimate of all these schemes, which is £500 million. Bearing in mind what the country is already called upon to bear, it is obvious that we cannot do much more from the Exchequer point of view than my right hon. Friend has already


announced. I therefore suggest that further consideration be given, next year, possibly, when the time is more suitable, to financing some of these projects by loans, because I do not see how else we can hope to break the back of this problem, except by adopting some extraordinary means of financing the work.
Another point I want to emphasise is the saving in cost both to the health services from the point of view of accidents and to industry in general by the speeding up of transport which would result from having an adequate road system. It is not easy to give any concrete figures on that point, but various statements have been made, like the one which my right hon. Friend has quoted in connection with London transport, and other industries have also quoted figures. There would obviously be an enormous economy in the health services and to industry if the accident black spots could be eradicated and the speed of traffic in general increased.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said that not a penny more should be spent in London until a great deal had been done in Lancashire and Staffordshire. I am sure we all want to see road improvements in all parts of the country, irrespective of where they are, but it must be realised that the first improvement which my right hon. Friend has announced in London is a very vital one—the Cromwell Road extension—because it is the route from here to London Airport, which must have been one of the main factors taken into consideration. When one realises that it is possible to travel from Manchester to London by air in almost the same time that one can travel from London Airport to this House by road, it seems essential that we should do something to speed up the traffic between here and London Airport.
I want also to say a word on the problem of Central London itself. This is a question not so much of spending large sums of money on new roads but of clearing the London streets of the cars which are parked there, in many cases on both sides and all day long. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to push ahead with the plan, which has already been announced, for relieving the streets of London of the many cars which

are parked there, by building garages under squares, on blitzed sites and places like that. I know that this will cost something, but it is possibly nothing like as serious a problem as that of making new roads. If something is not done very quickly, we shall be brought almost to a standstill at certain times in Central London. This problem is urgent, and I know that we all wish my right hon. Friend all success in solving that problem as in solving the main problem in the country as a whole.

1.26 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: I wish to stress one particular case. I am not at all satisfied that this is the ideal method of dealing with this problem from a Parliamentary point of view. My opinion is that we should have a special day or two on which to consider this problem as a whole, when we should not be speaking in an empty House but considering this vital matter from the point of view of the nation as a whole.
I welcome what has been done by the Government, but, like other hon. Members, I do not feel that they have done enough. I wish to make a special plea for priority in the case of Barton Bridge which is situated in my constituency and which, to a large extent, serves the people of my constituency and that great industrial trading estate in Trafford Park. It is the greatest trading estate, not only in this country but in the world, and I should have thought it would have found a special place in the affections of hon. Members opposite since it is a private enterprise trading estate and not one that has been promoted by us, as so many of the others have been in various parts of the country.
The trading estate and the canal itself were created as a result of the toil and genius of the people of Manchester. What is really out of date is the transport connecting the trading estate with the community. At present, 50,000 workers are engaged there, and the amount of upset and inconvenience which are caused there is almost unimaginable. During the war there were 75,000 people engaged in Trafford Park at the peak period. To deal with any emergency, it is essential that transport improvements should be made. This is one of the factors which the Minister should consider from the point of view not only of the convenience


of the people, but of the national interest in case of an emergency.
I want to stress three points. First of all, the lives of the people are concerned. There is no spot that is potentially more dangerous to the working community than this place. My hon. Friend has mentioned the width of the bridge, and no one can see the traffic pouring over there in both directions, with foot passengers walking along a very narrow path, without being made aware that there will certainly be a tragedy on Barton Bridge unless something is done. When we lift our voices in the House of Commons and warn the Government of such a potential danger, unless they do something about it they will be responsible for the tragedy which ensues.
I know of no place where such tremendous inconvenience is caused to people going to and from work as at Barton Bridge. This upsets not only the work of the people but their home life. They get back from work half an hour later than the time which they had arranged and their whole evening is upset. There is also very great difficulty in getting workers to go to the industrial firms in Trafford Park. I know of several firms who have had to leave the estate because of the great difficulty they had in persuading people to work there, owing to the bad transport arrangements. I want to express our appreciation of the fact that the Minister went there, looked at the problem, studied it, and decided to make a start on the approaches to the bridge, but I plead with him to press on with all speed, and to recognise that this really is one of the highest priorities in relation to our traffic problems.
A few days ago an hon. Member said to me, "I think you represent Eccles. I have a letter here from a man who travels through there on the Ship Canal," and he handed me the letter, in which the writer said:
Another matter I would like to bring to your notice, and I hope it will be of interest to you. The amount of money to be allocated towards the improvement of roads, the building of bridges, etc. Might I draw your attention to one place in particular, Barton Bridge over the ship canal at Eccles, connecting Lancashire and Cheshire. There are three roads converging from the Lancashire side and two from the Stretford side through Trafford Park. When a vessel of any large size is passing through, the bridge is off to road traffic from five to 10 or more minutes. The convoys of wagons and cars are enormous

from both sides. I do not think there can be a place anywhere in this country to top this wastage of time.
He goes on to suggest that the B.B.C. should send their television cameras and take pictures of what goes on at Barton Bridge, so that the whole community can see the industrial chaos and dislocation which is caused there.
The great road system of this country must be developed in connection with railways as well as for its own sake. I suggest that heavy long-distance transport should travel by rail whenever possible, to relieve the road system. The back room boys should be getting to work on the possibility of having a freely transferable load from road to rail, so that this heavy traffic could travel partly by rail and partly by road. We must put our transport system into a condition in which it can serve the people no matter how great the emergency which may come upon us.
While we cannot immediately accomplish the ambitious schemes which have been planned, very much more capital and effort should be put into this work to complete our transport system and make it really workable. From 1929 to 1931, when the Labour Government were in power, huge sums of money were spent on the railways—and they were very largely brought up to date—to try to relieve the unemployment which existed at the time. If the railways had not been improved then they would not have been able to carry the traffic which saved the nation when the emergency struck us in 1940.
I plead with the Government to regard this as a vital moment in our history, when they should have the courage to make great efforts to put right our transport system. But Barton Bridge is a No. 1priority, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the work will be continued straight through, so that, very soon, we shall see the danger and disorganisation eliminated from that area.

1.35 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I shall be fairly brief, and I make no apology for returning to the great subject of Staffordshire roads. We are determined that, if the Minister learns nothing else during his period at the Ministry of Transport, he shall know all


about the highways and byways of Staffordshire before he is finished. Some hon. Members seem to think that those Members who represent Staffordshire constituencies have been doing a great deal of special pleading about the roads in their county. I want to repudiate that allegation.
It is absolutely indisputable that Staffordshire is one of the greatest industrial areas in this country. With its coal, pottery, iron and steel, and the vast expansion of engineering, it is one of the industrial keystones of our economy. It is also indisputable that most of the people who use the highways of Staffordshire have nothing to do with the county. We plead for more road development in Staffordshire not merely for the benefit of those who live there but for the benefit of the country and its economy as a whole. We are concerned about those people who have to travel from London to Holyhead or Manchester, from Birmingham to Liverpool, and in many other directions, and who have to go through the congested industrial area of Staffordshire.
As the Minister well knows, all the Members representing constituencies in the county recently received a very important and detailed memorandum on the situation from the Chairman of the Staffordshire County Council. He also happens to have been the Chairman of the Highways Committee of that county for the past seven years. He described the situation by saying:
The main trunk and Class I roads of the County have long been obsolete having regard to their width and alignment, and bearing in mind the large volume of traffic they are called upon to carry, particularly heavy commercial vehicles and abnormal loads. This unfortunate state of affairs has applied throughout the whole of my Chairmanship,"—
of the Highways Committee—
resulting in a sense of complete frustration, particularly when it was fully realised by the Committee that on safety and economic grounds major improvements and increased maintenance works were vital.
The case we have been trying to impress upon the Minister in connection with the highways of Staffordshire is based not merely upon the appalling state of affairs arising from the appalling obsolescence of the roads in the county,

but also upon a comparison between our situation and that of other counties. It has to be realised that only 20 per cent. of the trunk roads passing through Staffordshire have a carriageway of 30 ft. width or more, compared with, for example, 47 per cent. of the Lancashire roads and 38 per cent. of the Cheshire roads.
I am making a comparison not with those counties which are so much richer and more salubrious than Staffordshire, but with neighbouring counties which have very serious road problems of their own. If we remember that only one-fifth of the trunk roads in Staffordshire have a carriageway of 30 ft. width or more, compared with 47 per cent. in Lancashire, and that only 1 per cent. of the Class I roads in Staffordshire have a carriageway of 30 ft. width or more, compared with 32 per cent. in Lancashire and 10 per cent. in Cheshire, I think it will be agreed that the Staffordshire Members are not indulging in special pleading.
We get a smaller grant allocation from the Minister than either of these other counties, because we are so much worse off—that is a fantastic state of affairs—although we have a greater weight and volume of traffic passing over our roads. It is calculated that every day in 1938 there were 122,000 tons of traffic passing over the trunk roads in Staffordshire and that at present, according to the census taken in 1950, the figure is 176,000 tons;50,000 tons more daily of weight of traffic passing over the trunk roads of Staffordshire than there were before the war.
Moreover, they are passing right through the county town of Stafford and right through the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. None of the major projects that have been in the pigeon-holes for years and years has been carried out, and only a very small improvement is proposed at the present time. We are, therefore, very seriously perturbed about this state of affairs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said, because of the great dangers and the appalling loss of life on the roads, and because of the calculable economic losses that are being sustained because of this inefficient road system.
We thank the Minister for doing something about the Stafford to Stoke road, and hope he will get on with that job straight away, but we also want him to get on right away with the plans that have been in the pigeon-holes so long for getting those major roads to pass around those towns. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will come to Stafford and have a look at this terrible situation, at all this amount of industrial traffic, all those huge generators and things of that kind that are passing through the little bottlenecks in towns like Stafford and Newcastle-under-Lyme. There have been plans made over the years for getting by-pass roads to go round those towns. The damage as well as the danger being experienced are simply terrible.
We are also concerned about the statement that the Minister is to make and what the Government are to do about allocations to counties, because we are very seriously aggrieved in Staffordshire about the allocation to counties. We consider that our allocation should not only be more but comparatively more because of the importance of the county's volume of traffic and the backward state of the roads, compared with those of our neigh-hours. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give some further indication that we shall get a greater allocation for counties next year and that Staffordshire in particular will get a much greater allocation.
It depends upon the Minister's asking for more revenue, and we are here today to stiffen the spine of the Minister, or to support him in demanding more revenue from the Treasury. That is what is required. He must demand more investment in this very important contribution that the roads make to our economy. If the Minister will say today that he is convinced of the necessity for a much greater capital investment in roads and of the necessity for a much greater allocation to county councils and borough councils for road improvement, and if he will ask the House, such as it is today, to give him support in trying to get greater capital investment in the roads and greater allocations to those councils, I am sure that the debate will have proved thoroughly worth while, and I am sure the Minister will get, at any rate from this side of the House, the support he requires.

1.44 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I am confident I speak for both sides of the House when I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on raising this subject of road policy, and I particularly congratulate him on the sincere and forceful speech he made.
I was rather disappointed at the contribution made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law). He appears to be in line with all ex-Ministers of Tory Administration in saying that his own Front Bench are a pretty poor lot but that on the other hand he prefers them to a Labour Administration, one of the reasons being that a Labour Administration began things in a large way without finally carrying them out, whereas Conservative Administrations do little by little. What he meant by that was, in a piecemeal fashion. I would say this to the right hon. Gentleman that we achieved in our period of office record production, record exports, full employment and fair shares. When this Government go to be judged at the next General Election the electors will say what they think is the better record, and I am quite sure it will be that of the Labour Administration.
So far as the Minister personally is concerned, I think he knows I have a regard for his energy and his boldness. I remember when he was Minister of State for Colonial Affairs telling him of a problem concerning British citizens from overseas and those who lived in the East End of London permanently, and suggesting to him that if he would go to see it personally that would be much better than reading reports or being told them by Civil Servants of what the problem was really about. He accepted the challenge, and, I think, did a pretty useful job. I only wish he would apply himself in the same way to road policy.
Like hospitals, like factories, roads at the moment are being sacrificed to political expediency. At the moment the Government want to claim that they have built so many houses, and no matter what it costs in other directions they concentrate on housing at, I think, an unfortunate cost to the economy of the country as a whole. That calls for that boldness and energy of the Minister in


impressing on his colleagues in the Government the need to spend more and more on roads.
I do not want to quote any but authoritative journals. What better than the "Municipal Engineering Journal," which on 11th December said this about the Minister and road policy:
When the Minister of Transport proudly announced in the House of Commons on Monday that the Government had decided on 'a considerable increase of expenditure on road improvements' it must have reminded many of Aesop's fable of the mouse which crawled out of the mountain. For the previous two weeks—ever since the rumour that Parliament was to allocate funds to improve roads—highway engineers had been awaiting the details. The 'considerable increase' turned out to be some £50 million in the next three financial years. In view of the Government's indifference this may indeed, in Mr. Lennox-Boyd's words, appear a 'formidable undertaking.' But related to the work which must be carried out if we are to survive as an exporting nation, it is taking cheeseparing to the point of absurdity.
When we in this House are backed up by expert opinion of that sort, I hope the Minister will show his energy and boldness in obtaining the necessary investment in road works.
I have a particular constituency interest, too. I have raised the subject of the Rochester by-pass road before, and what I have said is on the record, and I do not want to weary the House by going into the details again today. The Minister has said that our highway policy as a whole has been starved for about14 years. I would remind him to look at the records. He will see that 30 years ago the Ministry considered that the Rochester by-pass road was necessary. When I spoke last on this subject I said the traffic was getting heavier, and that there would be an increase in the number of accidents. I regret to have to say now that that forecast has been proved correct. In the third quarter of this year 416 people were injured in Chatham and Rochester compared with 382 in the third quarter of last year. Therefore, it is really a problem. It is a matter of saving life, of saving damage to body, and I think the Minister should look at the matter, though not in isolation, for I grant him that.
If he cannot do anything about the Rochester by-pass road he could go ahead with the local authority to make that

narrow High Street and adjoining roads in the area much safer than they are at the moment. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I mention another matter. There is the Gravesend Road. There are going to be some traffic alterations which I think will prevent accidents. People in that part have been very alarmed because a 30 miles-an-hour speed limit sign has been placed at the bottom of the hill, and lorries, vans and cars, which come over the hill at great speed, cannot pull up when they reach the 30 miles-an-hour sign. Between the area further back and this sign there are many houses. This is relatively a built-up area. If that sign had been moved, public anxiety would have been allayed. I am quite sure the Minister realises the importance of good public relations, and in that sense, therefore, I urge upon him to see that in carrying out improvements he also has regard to public interest and to good public relations.
The Minister is now about to do something we all welcome—to authorise the completion of the tunnel from Dartford across the river, which will carry all the heavy traffic in a much better way than might have been accomplished had the tunnel not been completed. Has he considered this point: by allowing traffic to use the tunnel he will cause an even greater congestion on the Kent roads. I was thinking of the Rochester by-pass, the Maidstone by-pass and the Ashford by-pass, which is to be improved. Is not the way to deal with this problem to have one main road running through Kent and to do a really big job? Kent is not only important from the point of view of getting people to holiday resorts but also because it is the nearest point to the coast on the other side of the Channel. This project would therefore be important from a strategic point of view. Consider how valuable such a road would have been had it existed during the last war.
I urge upon the Minister to consider the possibility of carrying on, either from Dartford or further up the road, one main trunk road going down to the coast. That would ease the problem on the three bypass roads. We have already pressed the importance of these three roads but we know it is not easy for him to do all this work in view of the heavy commitments which he has.
The pressure today has come from Staffordshire and other parts of the country, and I have impressed upon him how universal is the support for the improvement of roads in Kent because I have sent him correspondence from people in the North of England who said they had no idea that the roads in the South were so bad until they saw for themselves. I am therefore raising the matter; not with local support, but with general support. The Minister ought to show a more realistic and imaginative approach. Unless this is done he will have made no real contribution as Minister of Transport, and I for one will regret that.

1.52 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I think the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) for the manner in which he has introduced the discussion. He was, I think, quite right to remind us, as he always does, of the importance of England, and I hope that a Minister of Transport who had at least one English grandmother can genuinely say that he, too, thinks it is important. Scotsmen and Welshmen in the House would be wise to realise that there is a strong body of feeling which regards the importance of England as sometimes not being adequately stressed in discussions of this kind.
The hon. Member also spoke in a very nice way of myself and my son, and I certainly have a very vivid recollection of a very wintry morning some months ago when he and I and the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) met at six o'clock in the morning by Barton Bridge in Lancashire. I shall deal later with one or two projects in Lancashire, including that bridge, but however little I can do at this moment, my recollection of that bridge will remain very vivid. I am glad to hear that the hon. Member, who has precipitated this debate by a rather unusual use of his Private Member's opportunity, has not been carpeted by the Labour Party Executive. I am delighted that he has escaped the fate which came to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo).
We have had a very interesting discussion. The hon. Member for Eccles very wisely said that another function of the

Government should be to attempt by inducement to divert heavy traffic back from the road to the rail.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have been a little slow. I should have said that I only took advantage of one of our Parliamentary rights.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A perfectly proper advantage, and I am delighted to have this opportunity, although I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles that probably some longer discussion is desirable if we are to do justice to these most important problems.
The hon. Member for Eccles said how important it was to try to divert heavy traffic back from the road to the rail, as far as possible, and he suggested that the back-room boys should get together—I think that was his phrase—to find ways in which this could be done. I remind him that in the Transport Act, 1953, we have done a good deal to make this possible, not only by altering the basis of railway charges and giving them a freedom which they have never had before in the field of charges, but also by the provision dealing with the transferable container, which he mentioned in the course of his most interesting speech.
This is a matter of great importance, but however much we can divert traffic back to the railways, and heavy traffic at that, clearly there will be a road problem with us for a number of years. I greatly wish it had fallen to me to be able to announce a much more ambitious programme of major road construction. No Minister of Transport could be satisfied with the modest proposal which I have put forward
I must remind the House and the country, however, that these proposals do not include the grants for maintenance and minor improvements. On those we are still having discussions—inter-Governmental discussions—and I hope it will be possible to tell the local authorities what they can expect in this very large field earlier in the year than hitherto has been possible, for I am very conscious of the difficulties of planning their own budgets.
I have to recognise, however, that we must look at this picture as a whole. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprise (Mr. Law) said, we have to balance all the demands made on the Government from many different quarters.


My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has constantly pointed out the very heavy burdens we now have to bear, including a load for defence which is unprecedented in peace-time. Although our balance of payments is in a much better state than it was two years ago, we cannot possibly be satisfied either with our reserves or with the level of our exports. Productive investments must be increased in many other directions as well as in road construction if we are to maintain the steady growth in our national income.
I would remind all in the House and outside who want to see a much larger amount voted to road improvement that the utmost economy is still needed in our national finances and that there are many other claims on the savings of the people, each of which can make out a very strong individual case. All these things are paid for in the long run out of the savings of our people, and these savings are very heavily mortgaged for a long time ahead.
I clearly recognise that much of this expenditure will be productive and will yield useful returns and good dividends, but it is the same with a great many other things which we ought to do, and the Government have to take an overall view of the situation and judge the priorities in what appears the wisest way.
To me the most satisfactory feature of the announcement which I was able to make on 8th December was this: for many years, indeed since the Budget of 1947, there has been virtually no money whatever allowed for new construction, not by the Labour Government—which only a year before, in 1946, had come forward with a very ambitious programme of £80 million to be committed in the first year; not throughout the remaining years of their Government, nor at all under the Conservative Government, have we been able to authorise any expenditure on new construction until now.
When last year, as Minister, I had to deal with the possible collapse of the Runcorn-Widnes Bridge in Lancashire, I could only defend the amount of money to be spent on that bridge by treating it as maintenance, for there was no money for new construction. Now at least we have broken that freezing in the field of new construction. Although I would not

pretend that we can go so far as people outside want, and as I as Minister would like, at any rate it is the end of the period of a complete ban on major construction work, let us hope.

Mr. Bottomley: There is no difference between us about the need to balance and make sure that we spend money in a proper way. There is no difference between us on the point that good roads increase production and help to increase exports. Having those considerations in mind, will the right hon. Gentleman say if he is satisfied with the amount of money he has from the Treasury to meet necessary requirements?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would not pretend that all the requirements are being met, but I do claim that we have a fair share. Bearing in mind other claims on our limited national resources and the starving of road construction in the last 14 years, local authorities themselves have not adequate manpower to deal with a a much more ambitious programme. I do not mean the people who will actually lay the roads, but the designers and skilled men planning the construction. The Government have committed themselves in the year ahead to £19 million on new construction and £50 million in the next three years, and that will put a very heavy strain indeed on the manpower of local authorities. I think they will find that their work is cut out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) suggested that if this cannot be met out of the Exchequer grant a greater expenditure should be met out of a loan, but in whichever way it is reckoned, in the long run the money comes from the savings of the people. I do not think it is very profitable to find some other way of disguising that undoubted fact.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice helped me by putting the question of road construction into proper perspective. He asked me something to which I fear I cannot give an equally helpful answer. I am sorry if Hull Corporation and local authorities in the area have found it shocking that I did not mention the Humber Bridge. I was not able to mention a number of schemes which, although desirable in themselves, I fear cannot figure in our programme at this stage. I recognise the immense


importance of the great City of Hull and the territory it serves to our country, of which it is a major port, but I would be misleading both the city and my right hon. Friend if I gave a promise that a project costing £15 million would figure in the programme for the immediate future. Of course I have taken note of what my right hon. Friend said, and I will certainly not forget that one day it should be done.
I have been guided in the proposals I put before the House a few days ago by the need to concentrate as far as possible on areas of great industrial importance. Living a great deal of the year in London and going a great deal through Staines to the West Country and the south, I should very much like to have seen a start made on the by-passing of Staines. I cannot imagine a more irritating hold-up to a large number of people than that, but the greatest hold-up is at weekends and, looking at the picture of Britain as a whole, I could not possibly defend granting £1½ million to that project when there are such appalling congestions in industrial Britain.
Some 60 per cent. of the money we are proposing to spend on road improvements will be spent on roads in the industrial areas. I have been at pains to see that in England, Scotland and Wales the concentration should be on industrial areas. At the same time, naturally, we have been very anxious to go forward with any scheme likely to aid road safety. We must always remember, however, that 80 per cent. of all the accidents are in built-up areas and what can be done for road improvement in built-up areas is necessarily very limited.
Also, I have been naturally anxious to finish schemes upon which a lot of public money has already been spent, in particular the Dartford-Purfleet undertaking, which I think all hon. Members, from whatever part of the United Kingdom they come, will welcome. I have found it really indefensible to have to spend and authorise the spending of £12,000 a year to keep this tunnel drained before it is even in use. The £9 million which will be committed to that project will, I think, not only end an absurd situation, but will help the flow of traffic of an industrial character across that very important waterway.
With these considerations in mind, let us look for a moment at some of the points raised by the hon. Member who initiated the debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) said that he hoped hon. Members from Staffordshire would not be accused of special pleading. But he added that he trusted the Minister of Transport, whatever else he might not learn during his sojourn in Berkeley Square House, would not be ignorant of the claims of Staffordshire. I can assure him that the old sage of Lichfield himself could not want more and better Boswells than I have had around my doors during the last 18 months.
As both hon. Members were kind enough to mention, we have a very substantial contribution in the improvements that have been promised for immediate execution on the Stafford-Stoke Road. The hold-up on this road is notorious. I think it will really help if these three links are provided with dual carriage ways. This is a first step, not the final answer but the beginning of better times. I was asked for further details. We propose that the three links should be Wood Farm to Crown Inn, Aston; Meardale Cottage to Milestone-Stone 2½ and Strongford Bridge to Trentham. The existing carriageway is inadequate for heavy industrial traffic and the addition of these three wider lengths ought to help to get the traffic moving faster.
I realise that it is only a first step, but I hope it is an indication to the hon. Member—who at this season of the year I hope I may call my hon. Friend—that we realise the great importance of Staffordshire. It would be nice to be able to say that I could authorise the spending of £4 million in order to bring all the roads in Staffordshire up to a width of 30 feet, but if I did that the large majority of counties where the roads are not of that width would have a genuine grievance. We are very conscious of the importance of Staffordshire and I recognise that as much as anywhere traffic through Staffordshire is genuinely through traffic and advantages there will help the flow of industrial traffic as a whole.
Lancashire is of prime importance. Any road proposals that left Lancashire out would stand condemned. As hon.


Members know, we are proposing to effect a number of very substantial schemes in Lancashire in the next few years. I announced on 8th December that in the programme at once there would be the Wilderspool level crossing at Warrington. I have been urged since I became Minister that this is one of the first problems which should be tackled.
When I was at Barton Bridge one or two people took me on one side to say that however important this project was I should deal with Wilderspool crossing first. The hon. Member for Eccles asked what we were talking about and we pretended it was quite a different subject. We are going to tackle Wilderspool. This very important project is to be put in hand. We propose by 1956–57, at a cost of £2 million, to deal with the Preston by-pass and, in the year after we hope, with the Lancashire by-pass as well. Each of these by-passes will cost £2 million. They will be built as motor roads with dual carriageways and they will continue from part of the Birmingham-Shap motor road and yet each meanwhile will bring its own benefit to the great county of Lancashire.
The Preston by-pass will be 8¾ miles long and the Lancaster by-pass about 11½ miles long, and when these are completed some part of the romantic plan which had been prepared in Lancaster by the most vigorous engineer, Mr. James Drake, in "The Road Plan for Lancashire," will be a reality. I should like to pay particular tribute to the county surveyor for the work he has done in Lancashire and the very vivid way in which he has brought the needs of the county to the attention of the wider world.
I have also announced as an immediate scheme the improvement of the Aintree-Liverpool Road, which appeared in the list that I circulated in the Official Report when I made my statement a week or so ago. In addition, apart from all these schemes, there will be a number of smaller schemes in Lancashire, and I shall do all I can to see that they get a fair share of the money that is now available for schemes on classified roads.
I wish it had been possible to do more about Barton Bridge, but the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) knows that we have approved the beginning of the

tipping operations to form an approach to the bridge, although, I have to add, without prejudice to any decision that I must arrive at as to when actual construction can start. But I agree with the hon. Member that the traffic that passes over that bridge and the vast number of people who go to their work across it makes this a project of very great importance. I shall never forget its importance, and, I take it. I shall not be allowed to do so.
I should like briefly to deal with one or two other points which hon. Members have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) referred to the possibility of toll and roads and bridges. As the House knows, three toll projects exist at the moment by statute. The Mersey tunnel was built on a toll basis, the Dartford-Purfleet Act allows for tolls to be levied when this project is completed, and the Forth Bridge Act allows the same. I believe that there is a case for considering tolls in relation to bridges and tunnels where traffic is saved an expensive detour by the provision of that bridge or tunnel—

Mr. Harold Davies: It is a bit of an anachronism.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —and I have a completely open mind about it. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) says, "It is a bit of an anachronism." If we are to assume that all the money paid by motorists should go to the construction or maintenance of motor roads, it is clearly an anachronism that until that happens they should be asked to pay for the provision of new facilities. But I do not believe that a Government, of any complexion, would regard the payments out of the Road Fund as any different from ordinary Exchequer payments in any other Ministry, and it is not conceivable that any future Government would assume that money raised by motor taxation must be solely devoted for the benefit of motorists. That argument if applied to other forms of indirect taxation would get us in great difficulty. Those who think that the provision of toll facilities of this kind are an anachronism would do well to ponder whether, if that is the only way in which in our straitened economy we can provide these facilities, it is not better after all to face up to that possibility.

Mr. Harold Davies: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale asked me about the Skerton Bridge and expressed the hope that we could raise it in priority. It will be by-passed by the Lancaster by-pass which is proposed for 1957, and this should relieve the serious congestion at the bridge. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) suggested that the North-Eastern Division had been left out of all these proposals. He did, however, refer to the Doncaster Mill and Lock Bridge, which is an important project, which I know very well, and on which I received a deputation some months ago. We are proposing at a cost of £180,000 for trunk roads and £75,000 grant money to deal with this undoubted hold up, and we also have proposals in the North-Eastern area for discussion with the local authorities to the tune of £500,000, comprising projects below £100,000 each. I should be glad to discuss with the hon. Member any time he cares to come the sort of projects which we have in mind.
The hon. Member asked also about the Tyne Tunnel. This would be a very expensive project. When I was abroad my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary received a deputation from the Tyne Tunnel Committee. We could not, unfortunately, promise to include this in our proposals for the first three years, but I am fully seized of the importance of this project and I shall do my very best to find a place for it in our programme, although it cannot, I am afraid, be in the first three years.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman says, but this is what worries the authorities in the North-East. They had a very sympathetic response from the Parliamentary Secretary. I appreciate his difficulties when he saw the deputation, but it was a great shock to the authorities when next day the Minister made his statement. The authorities are worried about their loss of priority and feel that the Whiteinch Tunnel has taken their place.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member knows very well—none better—that they have had pedestrian facilities already. I must be quite frank in saying that the order of priorities for tunnels at the

moment is for the Whiteinch Tunnel to start next year and the Dartford—Purfleet Tunnel to start the year after; these two projects come first. I am, however, fully conscious of the importance of the Tyne Tunnel. I am equally aware of the need for the Blackwall Tunnel duplication, where congestion is appalling. I shall do all I can to see that both those projects figure in the programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South, commenting on the Cromwell Road extension, quite rightly drew attention to the fact that it will largely speed up traffic on the way to London Airport. When I remind the House that last year hundreds of thousands more people came to Britain through London Airport than came through Dover, our busiest passenger seaport, hon. Members will realise the great importance of these facilities. Quite apart from the aid to London Airport traffic, the Cromwell Road extension will also speed up the traffic in this part of London and genuinely aid smoother development
My hon. Friend asked about underground parking. I am very anxious to see action taken in that field and I shall have various suggestions to make, I hope, before very long.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And opposition.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: And there will be opposition, as the hon. Member says. I understand also, however, that in Lancashire, which invariably helps to lead the way, the city of Manchester is also interested in the same sort of project to which my mind has been turning.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) asked one or two questions about the by-passing of the Medway towns. This project definitely figures in our programme; it is an essential step. It does not figure in the first three years, but it definitely has a place in our plans; and anything I can do to help to accelerate it, I shall gladly do. The right hon. Member welcomed the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel and the completion of the Ashford By-pass, both of immense importance in the county of Kent. He asked a question about the placing of a speed limit sign, on which, I understand, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is having conversations in the Department this


afternoon. We shall see what we can do to meet the right hon. Member's point of view.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister mention the through trunk road?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will, again, examine the possibilities of the through trunk road, which the right hon. Member suggested, arising out of the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel. My feeling at the moment, however, is that that is probably not the best way in which to take the undoubtedly increased flow of traffic that will come as a result of the building of the tunnel, but I am ready to discuss that with the right hon. Member or with the local authorities as soon as the House reassembles.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the helpful way in which the debate has been conducted. It will not be the last debate we shall have on road congestion and road construction, but it has, at least, cleared the air of a number of misunderstandings. I hope that hon. Members going home to industrial constituencies, particularly in the north of England and in the Midlands, will carry with them the knowledge that the Government and the House of Commons as a whole realise the contribution which those areas are making to the life of Britain and have no intention that distance from London should make their problems any less seriously considered than if they were on our doorstep.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)

2.20 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I am glad that I was able to listen to the Minister of Transport, because people in Manchester and Lancashire will be extremely interested in what he has said. I may add that the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) in what happens in Lancashire is second only to his interest in the county of Staffordshire.
I am glad that time allows us a few more minutes to discuss the question of the employment of security methods, particularly in the Ministry of Supply.

I wish to refer to an Adjournment debate on 25th March, 1948, which followed the proposals of the then Government to institute a security procedure in the Civil Service designed to deal with people holding certain political views. I have refreshed my memory by re-reading that debate, and I was struck by the fact that at that time hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed anxiety about how these proposals would work, and how the methods of screening would operate. The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence spoke in that debate in those terms, as did the late Mr. Oliver Stanley.
I recall how I felt about it at the time, and in reading the debate again I was reminded of how much I agreed with the speech made on that occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). I reflected also that the experience of five years has done much to vindicate the view he then expressed. I did not like the proposals when they were made and, above all, I feared the consequences to the individual of the hidden accuser. What I have to say today is designed to demonstrate the consequences flowing from the procedure which was then adopted, and which has been considerably extended by the present Government.
I am advised that, since 1948, about 60 or 70 people have been subjected to purge procedure. Some have been dismissed and some have been transferred. But, during the five years, in not one single case has evidence been produced of the persons purged having behaved wrongly in the discharge of their official duties. If that be so, one might think it would lead the Government to consider whether the whole business was worth while. But in fact, the present Government have introduced a new and intensified version of this procedure.
Early in 1952 the new procedure was adopted and a Press statement made. I do not think it received much publicity. The statement said that the Government
have decided that special inquiries should be made about those holding or applying for such posts.
They were referring to people
employed on exceptionally secret work, especially work involving access to secret information about atomic energy.


The statement continued:
Further particulars will be sought from them and from other persons so that the Minister concerned may judge whether they are fit to be entrusted with such information"—
that is, in their work.
I wish the House to note, because much of what I have to say relates to it, the statement,
Further particulars will be sought from them and from other persons….
That was the Press statement, and the House will realise that obviously it affects particularly, if not exclusively, those working in the Ministry of Supply. I am dealing only with the new procedure initiated by the present Government at the beginning of 1952, and I am advised that this applies to about 14,000 civil servants, all workers in atomic energy factories and in the Ministry of Supply, and the secretariat surrounding Cabinet Ministers. This procedure has been deeply resented by many of the people concerned, and their trade unions have expressed such resentment. Let me say at once that some of the trade unions are of a highly professional character, not affiliated to the Trades Union Congress and much less to the Labour Party.
I wish now to give some examples, and one particular example, of how this procedure has operated. I have had occasion before to refer in this House to the case of a young married Manchester man, an engineer employed at the Ministry of Supply factory at Risley, in Lancashire. His name is Robert John Haslam. In July, 1950, he was offered a post at Risley, subject to the necessary referees, and, in the jargon of the modern world, he was "security cleared." He passed all the tests and he took up his appointment there. But in June of this year he became if not the first, one of the first at this factory to have the new test applied to him. For the sake of accuracy, as Mr. Speaker says sometimes, I have taken down in considerable detail what he complains about, and I should like the views of the Parliamentary Secretary on it at a later stage.
Mr. Haslam was asked to fill in a questionnaire which this Government introduced at the beginning of 1952. It contains a number of questions which, in the view of many people and of the trade unions on the National Whitley

Council, are highly objectionable. Mr. Haslam objected, but he filled it in. He was not a "new boy." He had been all through the procedure in 1950. He had been in for three years, but he was visited by one of the Ministry of Supply's newly appointed policemen, a so-called security officer who had the rather anonymous title of, "Mr. Smith," which would seem to be a sort of protective device for the security officer.
He interviewed Mr. Haslam and asked him a series of extraordinary questions, not only about himself, but about his relatives. I hope I shall not bore the House if I read them in some detail. Mr. Haslam was asked his date and place of birth; all addresses he had lived at since birth and the dates of removal; all schools and colleges attended full-time and part-time since the age of four; all occupations and employers and their addresses; the Departments in which employed since leaving school at the age of 15; the names and telephone numbers of his immediate superiors and chiefs of Departments and their present whereabouts; the names and addresses of all societies of which he was a member, his trade union and allotment society. I am told that the sleuth even wanted to know the whereabouts of his allotment plot.
He was asked the church he attended and full details of any interests and activities there. He said he was the treasurer of his church and he was interrogated about that. He said he was the organist there and did general church work, and he gave full information about the great amount of general work he did there. He was asked what sort of activities he organised, and was questioned about the functions of the church.
I pause there, although I have a lot more to say, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would like to sit in front of a security officer and answer those questions off the cuff? I am sure he would not. Anyhow I shall come to the relevance of that later.
Mr. Haslam was then questioned persistently as to whether he had any political affiliations with Communists or Facists. He said, "The investigator sought to discover my political views." He was asked when he was married, who were the guests at his wedding, how long he had lived at his present address, and was he likely to remain there? Finally


—the more obvious mark of the policeman—would he please give his height, the colour of his hair and eyes and would he verify his signature? Then the investigator turned to his family. Similar questions were asked about his mother and father, full details of their interests, what his father did, whether he also was an allotment holder, whether he was a Freemason and whether a Communist, and so on.
Then the investigator dealt with each of his brothers and sisters. It was the same thing over again—date and place of birth, full names, present address, married or single, occupation, name and address of employer, Department employed, name of immediate superior and head of Department. This latter information was for the purpose of following up at the places where his brothers and sisters worked, as we shall see later. He was asked the names of all societies of which they were members, their political views and interests, and was encouraged to say as much as possible regarding their politics, the churches they attended, whether they were supporters of the same church as himself, what work they did for the church, and so on. He was even asked, if they did not attend church, why not?
Then the investigator turned to his wife and asked similar questions. He wanted to know all about her work before she was married and about her parents, the questions being the same as those about his parents. He was asked about his wife's brothers and sisters and their wives and husbands. He was asked questions about their political views, interests and affiliations, membership of trade societies and other bodies and the total number of such relatives-in-law. Could the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Minister of Supply, answer for the political views and affiliations of all their relatives-in-law? Indeed, is this a question that can be answered and, anyhow, has it any relevance?
Finally, about his character referees. They were two respected people in the City of Manchester. One of them was the Rev. Mrs. E. R. Vallance B.A., who was the pastor at his church. The other was a distinguished engineer of Metropolitan-Vickers, who was head of the Turbine Experimental Department, a

Mr. B. Hodkinson. He was asked about them and also further questions about himself. The security officer asked him in detail about the nature of the work on which he was employed, the name of the head of his Department, who, I am advised, is Dr. J. M. Kay. He was asked his frank opinion of Dr. Kay, how he got on with him, what politics were discussed in the office by members of the staff. Mr. Haslam says:
I was asked persistently for this information, but gave none.
And all credit to him for taking such a courageous stand.
He was asked what was the general political viewpoint of the office and whether any of the office staff held extreme views politically. "Again I gave no answer," said Mr. Haslam. What sort of person is qualified to say what are extreme views? How dangerous this is. Is the Ministry of Supply to take action against an individual because somebody who has no political understanding or experience says that Mr. A. has extreme political views? That might be the end of Mr. A., and that is the danger of this procedure.
I pause here to remind the Government that recently we have been debating British Guiana. One of the charges brought against the P.P.P. and against Dr. Jagan's Government was that they sought to undermine the Civil Service by trying to obtain information from junior officers against senior officers in the Civil Service there. If that charge be true, it is a monstrous business for which the members of the P.P.P. should be brought into court and tried, just as the charge of arson was levelled against them should so be dealt with. None of us would condone that kind of spying inside the Civil Service in British Guiana, but it is being done here in Britain on this instigation of this Government, because here is a man who has been asked about the political views of his workmates.
I leave that to tell the House a little of what happened to the two referees at the hands of Mr. Smith. On 24th June, 1953, Mrs. E. R. Vallance was telephoned by Mr. Smith and asked a series of questions about Mr. Haslam. She was told, so she has said, that he was particularly interested in one of Mr. Haslam's brothers, actually his half-brother, who,


according to the investigator, was suspected of having Communist views. The investigator made persistent inquiries about Mr. Haslam's political leanings and interests, endeavouring to find out as much as possible about him. The inquiries were repeated for every member of his family in turn and about his wife and other relatives.
Remember, this was over the telephone to one of his referees. No wonder Mrs. Vallance said later:
The tone of this investigation was to encourage me to make vague statements. Leading questions were repeatedly asked which could easily have brought me to some admissions detrimental to the Haslam family. Had I not been feeling well disposed to any of them, I might have said something unkind and unjustified.
Of course she might, and that might have been the end of Mr. Haslam, because this procedure does not allow anybody against whom action is taken to be confronted by his accusers. That is the evil thing about it, they are never confronted by the people who are accusing them.
It is to the credit of Mrs. Vallance that she first brought this matter into the open in a letter to the "Manchester Guardian." She has said that after this conversation on the telephone she was in a state of nervous exhaustion as she reflected at leisure on the irreparable harm she might have done to a member of her church by a momentary indiscretion. Later, therefore, she wrote to the newspapers, and so the matter came to light.
I turn from that to say a word or two about an even more incredible story, about what happened to the other referee, Mr. Hodkinson, the distinguished engineer at Metropolitan Vickers. Here Mr. Smith, that is the officer of the Ministry of Supply, could not get hold of him on the telephone so he chose to put the questions to Mr. Hodkinson's wife. The questions were in a similar vein to those he put to the Rev. Mrs. Vallance. This time, however, he gave the reason for the call as being:
Mr. Haslam is being considered for a higher post and we are checking his political reliability.
Nevertheless, Mrs. Hodkinson was asked the same questions regarding Mr. Haslam and all members of his family and to Mrs. Hodkinson Mr. Smith put questions about Mr. Haslam's half-brother, a man

aged 49 who was also employed at Metropolitan Vickers. No wonder that Mrs. Hodkinson was very upset indeed afterwards.
Mr. Smith went through all the questions which I have already indicated. It was a monstrous procedure to employ the telephone anyhow, and even worse to put questions to somebody who was not the referee. However, Mr. Smith eventually managed to get on the telephone to Mr. Hodkinson who was the referee. The telephone call, in which he gave his name as Smith of the Ministry of Supply, questioned Mr. Hodkinson rather more deeply, so I am told, than the Rev. Mrs. Vallance and Mrs. Hodkinson. He asked the same things about Haslam and his family, about his politics, his social affiliations and where he spent his leisure time.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Was the telephone call to Mr. Hodkinson's home or to his work?

Mr. Griffiths: To his work. Mr. Smith was particularly interested to find out as much as possible about Haslam's brother, Edward, and he was disappointed with what Mr. Hodkinson told him. He reminded Mr. Hodkinson that Haslam's brother was employed in the research department of Metropolitan Vickers and, to quote Mr. Haslam,
He asked Hodkinson to contact my brother's superior in order to discover more about my brother's politics and background. At first, Hodkinson refused this request but after much badgering, during which Smith said he would telephone back one hour later for results, Hodkinson half agreed to meet my brother's superior. When Hodkinson put down the telephone and began to walk over to the Research Department of Metro-Vickers he found that he had great difficulty in steadying himself….
No wonder. He was very deeply upset.
Anyway, he met the superior to Mr. Haslam's brother and that gentleman had nothing to add to what Hodkinson had already told the investigator. Mr. Haslam adds:
One hour after the first telephone call to Hodkinson had ended, Smith rang Hodkinson again for results of his meeting with my brother's superior. Smith was disappointed with the answers.
They did not add anything to what he already knew. I think that I have said more than enough, however imperfect my presentation, to impress hon. Members


in all parts of the House, whatever their views about security, of the particularly monstrous behaviour in this case.
I turn now to the actions of the Minister himself, about which I am very concerned. The Minister was made aware of this matter in July. On 13th July I put a Question to him asking him specifically about the methods employed in this case. He replied:
I am satisfied that the information asked for was relevant to the case in question. But the use of the telephone in the circumstances was quite improper and steps have been taken to bring this to the attention of all concerned."—[Official Report, 13th July, 1953; Vol. 517, c. 125.]
Nevertheless, the Minister defended the procedure although he had been made aware of what had happened.
More recently my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and I put further Questions to the Minister. I sought to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman when this new procedure was adopted, and on 16th November I asked him whether he had, in fact, instituted any new procedure. He denied this, saying:
There has been no departure;…there has been no change."—[Official Report. 16th November, 1953; Vol. 520. c. 1382.]
He went on to suggest that the procedure which we now know was introduced at the beginning of 1952 was following exactly what had been laid down by the Labour Government. In answer to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton, he refused to place in the Library a copy of the questionnaire which had been referred to and he refused to give any further information at all. Three days later, however, the Treasury, after further questions from my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, agreed to place a copy in the Library. It is there today for hon. Members to see. I do not want to delay the House unduly but—

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has spoken for 25 or 26 minutes now and no doubt he wants a reply to what he has been saying. Perhaps he will bear that in mind.

Mr. Griffiths: I will end almost at once. Sir.
The facts in this disgraceful case have been placed squarely before the Minister

of Supply and I have sought to demonstrate—and I hope that I am not being too rude—that the Minister has behaved in a very shifty manner indeed in this case. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that on 7th November, after pressure from the trade union side of the National Whitley Council, their secretary has received what amounts to an apology for the procedure adopted in this case.
On 7th November, the Treasury wrote:
I have examined Mr. Haslam's statement and the case for the other side.…Whatever divergence may be on particular points the fact remains that serious mistakes were made in the handling of this case. We believe as strongly as you do that these inquiries should be conducted with the maximum discretion and consideration for the people concerned, that in this instance the human instrument should have proved fallible is disturbing to us as it is to you. In so far as it is possible to guard against a repetition, we will guard against it.
The least that the Minister can do is to apologise to Mr. Haslam for what has happened in this case.

2.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I will try as shortly as I can to answer all the points put to the House by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths). As he knows, he has taken nearly 30 minutes and I am left with slightly under 15. First I must deal with the hon. Member's attack on my right hon. Friend, and I must object most, strongly to his charge that my right hon. Friend had behaved in this matter in what the hon. Member called a "shifty manner." He has done nothing of the sort.

Mr. Griffiths: Of course he has.

Mr. Low: Perhaps the hon. Member will listen to me and admit that he himself has not been quite fair to the House. He referred to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to him on 13th July and to my right hon. Friend's remark that:
I am satisfied that the information asked for was relevant to the case in question.
The hon. Member did not refer to the form of the Question that he asked. In that Question the information to which he was objecting was information about the personal history of Mr. Haslam and the information gained from two referees, and of course there is bound to be, or


there is likely to be, in a matter of this kind a dispute or conflict between the persons concerned in the interviews as to exactly what took place.
I hope to be able to show the House when I deal with the many detailed points put forward by the hon. Member that the reports which I and my right hon. Friend have had about what took place at the interviews are very different from the reports which the hon. Gentleman has. The hon. Member might at least give my right hon. Friend credit for sincerity in the remarks that he has made. I shall show that the information which we believe was asked for was very different from that which the hon. Member has stated.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Question of 16th November and to a statement by my right hon. Friend in answer to his supplementary question when it was stated that there had been no change of policy. It appeared from subsequent supplementary questions that there had been a misunderstanding in the House about what my right hon. Friend meant at that time, and so in his last answer he made it absolutely clear, saying that he had not then been referring to the particular case. He said that investigations of one kind and another had been going on for a very long time. The last thing my right hon. Friend would do, as hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House know very well, would be to try to mislead the House. If he thought the House had been misled, the last thing he would do would be to leave it like that. He corrected the position, making it perfectly clear in answer to the final supplementary question.
The easiest way in which I can be of assistance to the House in this matter is to deal with it in the reverse way to that in which the hon. Gentleman did. I shall first take the facts of the Haslam case and then make one or two observations on general points of principle.
Mr. Haslam joined the Atomic Energy Establishment at Risley in July, 1950. On 28th April, 1952, he completed the questionnaire which has had to be completed since March, 1952, by all members of the staffs of the atomic energy organisation and by other Government servants employed on work of exceptional secrecy. The questionnaire is now before the House. It was put in the Library of

the House by the Treasury, who are responsible for matters of general interest to the Civil Service.
The questionnaire begins with this notice to everyone concerned:
Your…employment puts you in touch with information of outstanding importance from the point of view of security and the Government have decided that special inquiries must be made about the reliability of those in such employment. In order that these inquiries may be made you are asked to complete the questionnaire in ink or typescript. The inquiries which will be made will not necesarily be confined to the former or present employers and character referees named in your answers to questions 11 and 12. Anyone considered unfit, including a member of the Communist Party or a Fascist organisation or anyone associated with these bodies in such a way as to raise legitimate doubts about his reliability, will be barred from such employment.
In due course, following the completion of this questionnaire, inquiries were made by an investigating officer of the Ministry of Supply, Mr. Smith. The investigating officer followed up the answers to the questionnaire given by Mr. Haslam. He interviewed Mr. Haslam himself, and the report that he has made shows that Mr. Haslam volunteered very full information in reply to the questions.
In addition, the investigator, as he was expected to do, made certain other inquiries. Contrary to his instructions, he made some of those inquiries on the telephone. In particular, he spoke on the telephone to the Rev. Mrs. Vallance, Minister at the Unitarian Church, Urmston. I am told that the investigating officer had arranged that day to see Mrs. Vallance, but his car broke down. He therefore telephoned Mrs. Vallance. It was obviously right that he should telephone Mrs. Vallance to apologise for being late or not being able to get there, but—this has been made clear over and over again—he was acting quite improperly, as he had been told and has been told since, in making inquiries of Mrs. Vallance on the telephone instead of arranging another interview later. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 13th July last, steps have been taken to bring this matter to the attention of all concerned.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of detailed points. I have had the advantage of seeing some of the correspondence in the case, and, also for greater accuracy, I have before me a list of the points about which Mr. Haslam


has complained and some comments on them which have been made in my Department as a result of an interview with the investigating officer.
Mr. Haslam has stated that he was questioned persistently as to whether he had any political affiliations, Communist or Fascist, or any such society. I do not think he has complained about that point. He has complained that the investigator sought to discover his political views. The investigator denies that he did. Of course, the investigator would be interested to know whether he was connected with Communist or Fascist organisations. That matter is mentioned in the questionnaire, and it is relevant and vital to the question as to whether Mr. Haslam should be employed upon secret work. The investigator flatly denies having sought to discover Mr. Haslam's more general political views, and he also denies that he asked him how long he was likely to remain at his present address.
As to the questions that were alleged to have been put to Mr. Haslam about his father and mother, the investigator has reported that the information which was given arose in the course of general conversation. The House will understand—this probably explains some of the conflict of evidence about what took place at the interviews—that the interviews do not consist merely of a series of questions and answers, but that general conversation arises, and, as a result of the general conversation, one side may have thought that it had been vigorously and pointedly asked to give some information, when it had never been the intention of the other party to the conversation to raise the matter at all.
There are a number of other items in respect of which the investigator denies having asked the questions that he is alleged to have asked. In particular, he denies that he asked any direct questions about the political sympathies of Mr. Haslam's wife's parents. He also denies that he asked for any opinion to be expressed by Mr. Haslam about Dr. Kay, or about his relationship with Dr. Kay, or about the politics of the other members of the staff. The investigator has been asked specifically about that subject, and he is quite clear that he did not ask those questions. I might add—perhaps the hon. Member will give some credence to this—that I have seen the report made by the

investigator, and in it there is no reference to this matter or, indeed, to any other matter which the investigator denies having raised. From our point of view, that is some evidence of what took place.
I would also add one other point about which there seems to have been some misunderstanding. Mr. Haslam has in formed us in letters that I have seen that all the questions, including those about Dr. Kay, were answered honestly and that the interrogation lasted 50 minutes. Apparently he informed the hon. Member that he had not answered the questions; but we will not go into that. The interviews with Mrs. Vallance and with Mr. and Mrs. Hodkinson on the telephone—I have dealt with the point about the impropriety of using the telephone; in fact, it is forbidden to do so—

Mr. Griffiths: Never mind the telephone, what about the question?

Mr. Low: I have now been speaking for 11 minutes, and I am trying to give other hon. Members a chance of using the Adjournment time today. The hon. Member spoke for 28 minutes, and I have spoken for 11 minutes. I think I should be allowed to pursue the answer in my own way, and I shall be grateful if the hon. Member will stop interrupting me.
With regard to the telephone conversation with Mrs. Vallance, it is quite impossible for me to comment in any other way than to say that it was improper to conduct these investigations on the telephone.

Mr. Griffiths: What about the question? Never mind the telephone.

Mr. Low: If the hon. Member would like—

Mr. Griffiths: Never mind the telephone.

Mr. Speaker: It is not open to an hon. Member to dictate the course of any other hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Low: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The telephone conversation with Mrs. Hodkinson lasted only about a minute, and although the investigator admits that he asked her in a general way about Mr. Haslam and his family, there was no detailed conversation with her. As to the conversation with Mr. Hodkinson, I agree with what I took to be a small


sotto voce interruption by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) during the hon. Member's question, that it was quite wrong for the investigator to ask questions on the telephone. Indeed, it would have been wrong to interview Mr. Hodkinson at his place of employment. It would have been much better to seek him out privately in order to ask him these confidential questions.
The investigator's version of the interview is that it was a very friendly affair. The investigator did not badger Mr. Hodkinson at all for any information. He had a general discussion with him on the subject, as a result of which he was able to make his report. The important thing is what happens to the investigator's report. The investigating officer has no further part to play in the case once he has made his report. The report then comes to the headquarters of the Ministry of Supply in London, and an assessment is there made of the facts recorded in it and of those recorded in the questionnaire.
As a result of that assessment in this case, it became absolutely clear that Mr. Haslam was a suitable person to be entrusted with secret work of the kind he was doing, and there was no reason to doubt that he would fully respect the trust which we placed in him. As I think I indicated at the beginning, Mr. Haslam is still working at Risley and doing the same job. In fact, only last month he was given a rise in pay.
I much regret if Mr. Haslam has suffered by reason of the inquiries made about him, but let me make it absolutely clear that the fact that such inquiries have been made should cast no doubt upon his loyalty. These inquiries have been or will be made in due course about every person employed in the Ministry of Supply engaged on exceptionally secret work, just as they have been or will be made about some 2,500 civil servants outside the Ministry who are also employed on exceptionally secret work.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I know my hon. Friend very well, and I also know that he has been pressed in the Manchester area to pursue this question. In doing so, he is only doing his public duty. He wants to know, and I think the House

would be more satisfied if it could be told, what are the exact questions put in circumstances of this kind.

Mr. Low: I was just coming to that matter. Of course, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the exact questions asked in these cases. I have not a copy of any report from the investigating officer giving the exact questions asked in every case. I understand the conversation is conducted far less formally than in many cases, but let us face the fact that there is this difficulty before the investigating officer. On the one hand it is the duty, and indeed, it is very much in the national interest, that the fullest information should be available to those concerned about these people employed on secret work. It is no departure from the policy employed by the previous Government. On the other hand, I think that we all agree that it is not only British, if I may put it that way, but also important to the success of this scheme of things, that these interviews should be conducted in such a way that they do not upset the feelings of those concerned.
That is how we and the investigating officers try to have these interviews and inquiries carried out. It may well be that from time to time there are lapses and mistakes, but we believe, in fact, that there have been very few. I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in this, but I must assure him that there have been remarkably few complaints about the way in which these very tricky and delicate investigations have been pursued. The hon. Member said there was deep resentment in many of the unions. I am well aware that this new procedure was examined very carefully by the trade unions and staff interests affected, and I really think he has overstated their attitude when he said there was deep resentment. I think that all concerned understand the need for it, and I just want to put the need for it very shortly to the House, I will then close because I think this really completes the picture.
I cannot believe that anyone in the House would challenge the proposition that the people of Britain have the right to be protected against the betrayal of vital defence secrets. The Government, therefore, has the duty to see that they are so protected, and that has been the practice for a very long time. When the


present Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister he said:
…steps are taken as are necessary to make sure that those entrusted with secret information of vital importance to the State are loyal to the State."—[Official Report, 5th February, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 1904.]
The House will remember that shortly after he made that statement, the former Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition announced, on 15th March, 1948, what I think the hon. Member referred to as the purge procedure. He said:
…the only prudent course to adopt is to ensure that no one who is known to be a member of the Communist Party, or to be associated with it in such a way as to raise legitimate doubts about his or her reliability, is employed in connection with work, the nature of which is vital to the security of the State.
He added:
The same rule will govern the employment of those who are known to be actively associated with Fascist organisations."—[Official Report, 15th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1704.]
That inquiries were made for this purpose was confirmed on the 22nd May. 1950, by the then Minister of Supply, when he said:
…everyone who is working on secret work for the Government is examined to see whether his association, past or present, with the Communist Party is such as to bring his reliability into question."—[Official Report, 22nd May, 1950; Vol. 475, c. 1653.]
In answer to a Question which I myself put to him on the 18th September of that year, the same right hon. Gentleman said:
Investigations are made into the reliability of all staff employed on secret work for my Department, including atomic research. It would be against the public interest for me to go into more detail."—[Official Report, 18th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1538.]
That position continued up to the early part of 1952, when the new procedure was adopted. A statement relating to this new procedure was referred to by the hon. Member. It was released to the Press on the 8th January. The announcement made it clear that the only change was in procedure—no change in principle. I must repeat that investigations and inquiries conducted in the past were made without the knowledge of the subject. Under the new procedure, the details of which were discussed both with the staff side National Whitley

Council and the trade union representatives of Government industrial employees, investigations and inquiries are made with the full knowledge of the person concerned. This change has led to better information, and more of it. But it has not intensified the purge procedure.

Mr. Griffiths: Of course, it has.

Mr. Low: The figures are these. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 60 people who had been purged. I cannot confirm the figure exactly, but I think it is about right. As he or his hon. Friend was told recently by the Financial Secretary, only 11 have been subjected to this procedure and, as a result, transferred from their jobs on secret work since this new procedure came into force. It really cannot be said that the purge has been intensified. I would say that from the individual's point of view, this new system is preferable to the old. Everyone concerned fills in a questionnaire and knows that inquiries are going to be made of him and about him.

Mr. Griffiths: But not to whom.

Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman has referred at some length to the interview that took place. My right hon. Friend and I are every bit as anxious as the hon. Gentleman—and I hope he will acknowledge my sincerity in this matter—to avoid interference with the freedom of the individual. But while we endeavour at all times to be fair to the individual, we must also be fair to the British people as a whole. We must guard them against betrayal of secrets of vital importance to the State.
The principles and the procedure to which I have referred apply to all the Government Departments which handle important secret information. It is very important for us to see that the procedure, including the conduct of the interviews, is carried out properly and well, with full regard to the feelings, the convenience and the individual liberty of all the people concerned. These investigations are not a pleasant task for anyone, but we believe they are vital.
The former Government quite rightly established a procedure—the purge procedure—for civil servants affected in this way, with many very good safeguards for


protecting the individual's rights. Every one of those safeguards applies in exactly the same way as they have always applied. The only change is in the procedure of making the inquiries. There is no change in the steps that may have to be taken at a later date. No one can be transferred compulsorily from his secret work unless the case has been referred to my right hon. Friend.
If my right hon. Friend thinks there is a case, a charge is then made which the person concerned sees. He has a chance of replying, and if the Minister thinks that the case should be pursued the matter is then referred to the three advisers before whom the man concerned may appear. After the three advisers have given their advice, my right hon. Friend makes his decision. At that stage it is still possible for the man concerned to make further representations. Then the final decision is made. All those safeguards still exist, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he has read this and considered the matter again, will see that the interests of the individual are safeguarded as far as they can be, consistent with the safety of the public.

SURPLUS AMERICAN PRODUCE (PURCHASE)

3.14 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: We pass now from the consideration of security in the Ministry of Supply to the subject of the American Mutual Security Act. I want to refer to the operations of Sections 541and 550 of the American Mutual Security Act under which surplus American agricultural products are made available for purchase in other countries.
I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this subject, because this matter is not perfectly understood in this country, and when something is imperfectly understood it is liable to give rise to vague fears which it is the purpose of this short debate to dispel. Incidentally, I hope that my hon. Friend will not take exception to any questions I ask him.
First, I should like to stress the gratitude which we all feel for the magnanimous attitude of the United States of America and the help that that country has given us. Anything that I shall refer to in this debate should not be taken as

reflecting in any way either upon the generosity of the United States or upon our sincere appreciation of it. In dealing with the post-war economic dislocation, however, we have for so long—if I may use familiar words—moved from expedient to expedient, that it is surely now time that we were at least nearing the restoration of a more solid basis for international trade. I should like to pay tribute at once to the efforts of the present Government in that direction, and I hope that those efforts will render economic aid unnecessary and will substitute trade on an economic basis, but we have to be careful that particular expedients do not delay or even prevent the achievement of that object.
The fact of the present situation is that the United States are reported to have considerable agricultural surpluses, resulting in the main from their farm support price policy. It is certainly not for us to criticise the internal policy of the United States of America, especially as we have a farm support price policy of our own, but there is probably more to be said for such a policy in a food importing country than there is in a food exporting country. However, the fact that we and other countries have not the dollars to purchase as much as we might otherwise do certainly contributes to the surplus conditions in America.
This situation applies not to the United States of America alone, but to other dollar countries, particularly Canada. Canadian wheat exports, five years after the war, dropped by one-third, and apples and other farm products have been seriously affected.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: What about barley?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not think that barley comes into today's discussion. The United States conceived the idea of disposing of their surpluses to the benefit of other countries. Section 550 of the Mutual Security Act provides that
Not less than 100 million dollars and not more than 250 million dollars of the funds authorised to be appropriated under this Act shall be used, directly or indirectly, to finance the purchase of surplus agricultural commodities or products thereof, produced in the United States.
It goes on to say that the President is authorised to negotiate agreements. One rather peculiar aspect of the Act is that


the President is authorised to negotiate agreements for surpluses at maximum world prices. It is a very peculiar thing to put on paper the idea of selling surpluses at maximum world prices.
The agreements that are to be negotiated must be designed
to safeguard against substitution or displacement of usual marketings of the United States of America or friendly countries.
They must use the normal trade channels, and there must be no resale or transhipment of the products thereby made available. It is obvious that it is very difficult not to affect other marketings.
In passing, I would refer particularly to the phrase:
usual marketings of the United States of America or friendly countries.
I would ask my hon. Friend whether displacement of sales from non-friendly or not so friendly countries is being envisaged. Is this being done, or is it intended? Another point about the procedure is that not much time seems to be allowed. I understand that surplus products are notified every month and, in the case of tobacco, the Board of Trade gave the trade only four days to make up its mind. It sent out letters on 10th October and asked for replies on 15th October.
The particular question I should like to ask my hon. Friend is this. Before any approach is made by this country where Commonwealth products are likely to be affected or may be affected, can we have an assurance that Commonwealth countries concerned will be consulted? Can we have an assurance that the outmost action will be taken to make certain that future purchases of Commonwealth products, as is intended by the Act, shall not be affected?
In passing, I should say that the approach has to be made by the purchasing country. Notification of available products is made by the United States, and the approach has to be made by the purchasing country. I do not intend to go into detail in any particular case. It is obvious, for example, in the case of tobacco that the purpose of this particular purchase, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade told the House, was to replenish stocks.
After the purchase of 35 million lb. or 40 million lb. it is likely that stocks will be about 10 per cent. below the 1938 level, whereas consumption is about 10 per cent. higher. I understand the only other purchase at present is of prunes, 12,000 tons according to the latest bulletin, at a cost equivalent to about 5 million dollars.
So long as the Government control purchases such a transaction is comparatively easy, but there are other possible products that are becoming or may become available through surpluses. I have in mind, in particular, canned fruits, of which we are comparatively short in this country. Can my hon. Friend tell us whether any approach has been made or is likely to be made on that subject? Are there any other goods that are likely to be made available of which we may make purchases at the present time? Are we interested in getting, for instance, linseed oil and olive oil?
Arising out of Section 541, there is the question of purchases of cotton, which was referred to three days ago in the House. I understand that those purchases are to be mainly by private traders, and that only a small part will be by the Raw Cotton Commission. Are they also for stock? If not, what do they replace? What is to be the procedure?
Another question that arises is, what happens to the sterling paid for these products? According to the Government it was to be applied to meet defence costs. That is, as I understand, the United States pay the exporter in dollars, we keep the sterling and use it for defence costs to be agreed, no doubt, with the United States of America. Is that the case? Has the expenditure of this money to be agreed with the United States of America?
Can my hon. Friend assure the House that sterling will not be used for the purchase of defence goods for shipment to a third country, for off-shore purchases, or purchases of Commonwealth goods for United States stockpiles, or the purchase of goods in other friendly countries, all of which would be possible within the terms of the Act. It seems to me that it is most important to ensure that these gifts help us and in no way interfere with normal rade.
The Act provides that the sterling proceeds could be used for developing new markets or for loans to increase production in friendly countries. Have the Government in mind that this should be done? I think it presents certain dangers. It would mean, in effect, allowing the United States to supply us with consumption goods and using the proceeds for the development of the Colonies. In that case presumably the United States would retain the possession of the sterling and the interest on it, and I think there would be grave dangers in that.
Finally, can my hon. Friend answer a rather technical question which may lead to confusion in the future? How will these transactions be accounted for in the trade and balance of payment statistics?

3.26 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) for raising this matter, which is of very considerable importance and on which there has been a good deal of public misunderstanding. This is, in effect, another form of United States aid, and I join with my hon. Friend in expressing the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government for the aid which is involved.
I would also say a word of appreciation of Mr. Stassen, the member of the United States Administration primarily responsible for these matters. In the last few days I myself have had some discussions with him on these matters, and he is an ideal man with whom to do business. His understanding of and his sympathy with our problems in this country are quite outstanding.
Under the Act to which my hon. Friend referred, Section 550, the United States Administration is empowered to apply not fewer than 100 million dollars and not more than 250 million dollars towards financing the purchase by other countries of surplus agricultural commodities available in the United States. These surplus commodities are to be paid for in local currency. In other words, if they sell us cotton seed oil or whatever it may be, we pay for it in sterling. That is the first question—these commodities are to be available for purchase by other countries in their local currency.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Because they are short of dollars.

Mr. Maudling: I shall explain that as I go along. The main condition is that these movements of commodities are not to displace the usual marketings of friendly countries. It is a very important condition, and it is an obligation on the United States Administration imposed by Congress, that it should make sure that these sales do not displace the usual marketings. It is, therefore, the responsibilty of the American Administration to see that this does not happen, and it is, of course, also very much the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to make sure that no Commonwealth trade is displaced by these movements of commodities.
The only commodities affected so far have been tobacco and prunes. We have made apurchase for sterling of American tobacco to the value of some 20 million dollars. This tobacco will go into stock. We have the assurance of the manufacturers concerned, who are buying the tobacco, that they will apply it to stock and will not tranship it anywhere else. As my hon. Friend says, there is considerable scope for additional stocking of tobacco. At the moment, I understand, to bring tobacco stocks up to the normal pre-war level would need about another 180 million pounds of tobacco, whereas the amount concerned in this transaction is more like 27 million pounds. Quite clearly, this movement of American tobacco to this country will add to our stocks—which is a very good thing—but it will not in any way displace the normal marketing of Commonwealth tobacco. I am glad to be able to give that assurance.
The other commodity so far considered is prunes, in which the Commonwealth, apparently, has no particular interest. I am informed that there is a very large unsatisfied demand for prunes, and the American type of prune is quite different in quality from the type we obtain from other countries. This surprising information, which, in practice, I have no reason to doubt, shows that there is no danger in the case of prunes, any more than in the case of tobacco, of this movement of commodities affecting the normal marketing which would otherwise take place.
The programme we have been discussing with the United States Administration


amounts to 60 million dollars and the other commodities with which we have been mainly concerned are fats and meat. My hon. Friend will readily recognise that in the case of fats and meat there is no danger whatever, in current circumstances, of purchases from the United States affecting Commonwealth markets. My hon. Friend referred particularly to the question of fruit. That has been raised but there are very considerable difficulties involved in the purchase of fruit by the United Kingdom under these provisions.
I can give my hon. Friend a definite assurance that if we should make any purchase of fruit of any kind we should do so only if the conditions to which I have already referred are fulfilled and there is no displacing of Commonwealth supplies. That is not only an obligation on us, but on the United States Administration.

Mr. N. Macpherson: That does not include apples?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, and apples.
That is the position on the question of displacing normal markets. In the case of each particular commodity any such movement will not displace normal marketing and it is a moral obligation on the Government, and equally a statutory obligation on the United States Administration, to make sure that no such displacement should take place. I am glad to have the opportunity in this debate of making that perfectly clear, because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding on the point.
The next question I was asked is what happens to the local currency. It is provided under Section 550 that the local currencies—in this case the £ sterling—whichthe American Administration acquire from the sale of these commodities can be applied for a number of different purposes. I think there are altogether six different purposes for which this sterling can be used. In our case we have agreed with the American Administration that for this 60 million dollars the whole of the sterling proceeds shall be applied to the support of the United Kingdom's defence effort. In practice, what happens is that the United States say that here is some tobacco, prunes, lard, or beef which they will sell for sterling. We say, "Thank you very much."

They give it back again and say, "Spend that to help finance your defence effort."
My hon. Friend will see that it is tantamount to a gift of the United States to this country. The economic effect of the whole transaction is that there is a transfer of the surplus commodities from the United States to the United Kingdom without any additional burden upon our economy. I would have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would regard that as a singularly enlightened and sensible practice. There used to be criticism, before the war, of the destruction of consumable commodities in surplus supply. It is good to see this enlightened system applied to United States' surplus commodities.
My hon. Friend asked one or two questions about the alternative uses to which the American Administration can apply this sterling under the Act. It can apply it, for example, to offshore purchases and for stockpiling by the United States Government. If that were done, the situation would, I agree, be entirely different. Under the American legislation, they can, if they wish, use the sterling for that purpose, but there is the specific agreement between us and the American Administration that in the case of 60 million dollars worth of commodities the whole sum will be applied to the support of the United Kingdom defence effort.
There is one small point which, perhaps, my hon. Friend had in mind when he mentioned the Colonies. There is a small additional sum of a few million dollars in respect of further commodities that may be made available, in which case it is agreed between us that the sterling counterpart should be applied towards colonial development, but this would be colonial development by us. My hon. Friend will agree that that is just as desirable a project as the application of sterling for the maintenance of our defence expenditure.
This, therefore, is the position. These commodities are being made available to us by the U.S. Government for purchase in sterling—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Thus saving dollars.

Mr. Maudling: They are being made available to us for purchase in sterling; that is the object of the United States


legislation in the matter. I cannot see the slightest point in the hon. and gallant Member's intervention. These commodities are being made available to us for purchase in sterling.
The movement of these commodities I can give a certain guarantee on this—will not affect the normal marketing of Commonwealth products, and the sterling which the Americans obtain from us in exchange for these commodities is handed back to us as a contribution to the support of our defence efforts, which they recognise, and which we are all proud to recognise, is an outstanding defence effort in Western Europe. I think, therefore, it can be fairly said that this is another example of the enlightened, sensible and wise policy of the United States Administration in its dealings with Western Europe.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I put a question to the hon. Member? The whole object is to save dollars, and are not the American Government being enlightened so that we can have the benefit of these surplus products without having to pay dollars?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. and gallant Member must have failed to understand every word of my speech.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCE

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I am particularly grateful that this subject should be debated today in view of the fact that, owing to illness, I was unable to raise it the other night. I am sure that the Minister is grateful also. I must admit on this subject to have divided loyalty, because I have had a long and happy association in the Territorial Army and, in the war, with the Anti-Aircraft Command. I hope that I shall still be on speaking terms with them after what I have to say this afternoon, particularly as their headquarters is established in my constituency. I venture to raise this particular aspect of military operations with the Minister because it presents a number of new problems which require study.
Two new factors have entered into the position since Anti-Aircraft Command took part in the last war. The first is the tremendous development of jet pro-

pulsion and the increased speeds of aircraft. This means that the division and blocking of spheres of influence between gun areas and fighter areas which was practised in the last war is now no longer a practical possibility. That makes it all the more imperative that the operational control of the air defence of this country should be in every single respect vested in one command.
There is a second aspect of the situation which has more recently come forward with what is, in my view, the right decision of the Government to give the new guided missiles to the R.A.F. I have no doubt the Minister will say that this is a long-range project, and that anti-aircraft gunnery has still an important part to play. With neither of those contentions do I disagree, but I submit that if we give to the R.A.F. a new and vitally important development such as guided missiles, we are in fact saying to the heavy anti-aircraft gunner, "So far, and no farther. In future all the interesting things which are to be done will be in the hands of the R.A.F. and your activities will gradually, but definitely, be curtailed."
I submit that is not an encouraging position for any set of troops to be in, particularly when one remembers that Anti-Aircraft Command is largely recruited from volunteers to the Territorial Army. It is not a very satisfactory position from the point of view of recruitment to the Territorial Army for those concerned with anti aircraft defence.
Let us consider the structure of Anti-Aircraft Command, consisting as it does of groups, brigades and numbers of anti-aircraft regiments. The expense of running these headquarters is considerable and the number of people employed is large. In view of the fact that a completely new departure has been undertaken in the granting of ground-air missiles to the R.A.F., the relationship between Anti-Aircraft Command and Fighter Command is now so close as to make it desirable that the two should be operationally merged.
In the last war the technical operational control—as I know the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) will agree—was vested in Fighter Command, although a great deal of the


operational activities was the responsibility of Anti-Aircraft Command. I submit that the fact that the R.A.F. are now to be on the ground firing in the air has radically altered the whole situation.
There are also large administrative organisations belonging to the field arm, including R.A. formations, which are playing a separate rôle to anti-aircraft gunners. I submit therefore that there is a case for saying that, operationally, all static anti-aircraft units should be controlled and administered by Fighter Command in this country; and that those mobile anti-aircraft units still required by the field arm should be transferred to the field arm for all administrative purposes and should remain under the operational control of Fighter Command when they are in operation in this country, as opposed to overseas.
I would also ask the Minister to look carefully at the amount of money spent, and planned to be spent, upon heavy anti aircraft installations. The White Paper on Defence stated clearly that the intention of the Government was not to spend more money than was essential on equipment which might in due course become obsolete. We are well aware of the problem of obsolescent equipment and the necessity for drawing the line at some point to ensure that we have the best necessary for the time being.
I believe that far too much money is being spent, and is being planned to be spent, on heavy anti-aircraft installation. Although I agree that the anti-aircraft gun still has a rôle to play, in the light of the development of methods of aircraft attack I do not think that rôle is so efficient as to justify extreme expenditure upon certain modern radar equipment. In fact, I believe that today we are in serious danger of retaining in our anti-aircraft layout and planning conceptions which were relevant to the last war but would not be relevant to another.
I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply got into difficulties on this subject before the last war but I hope that, in view of the attitude I am taking this afternoon, I shall escape a similar fate. I suggest to the Minister of Defence that first, at an early date he

should consider the abolition of Anti-Aircraft Command and that the R.A.F. should be asked to take over static anti aircraft units in this country. There is already in existence the R.A.F. Regiment which is trained in the use of the light A.A. gun. I am sceptical about the future value of that gun in static defence, and I hope we shall soon be told that a new light A.A. gun is not being thought about but is in production.
In the recent debate we were confronted with the problem that the National Service men in the R.A.F. are not being called up during the three-year period after they have served their two years. If my suggestion is adopted, here is a new way in which to employ a greater number of those R.A.F. men and to reduce the Army commitment. I ask the Minister to consider singling out those A.A. regiments which are to be retained in the Army. My right hon. Friend is confronted there with a considerable problem because many A.A. regiments have traditions reaching into the past which they would not wish to have broken. However, where changes are essential in the general interest, I know that they would be accepted loyally. I would also ask the Minister to put these under the administrative control of the Field Army, and under operational control of Fighter Command when they are operating in this country.
This is a big problem and one which requires considerable thought and planning, but at the present time we are working upon a system which instead of becoming more efficient might tend to become less so. I think that the undoubted advance of weapons of attack makes it imperative that we should think ahead and with courage, and therefore I hope the Minister will not reject out of hand the suggestions I have made simply because they are not in keeping with the old formula, because I think that the old formula is out of date.

3.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) has raised a big subject, which it is difficult to deal with in a quarter of an hour. He is unusual in one respect. In speaking in debates on defence in this House my experience is that most people who have been in a


command, as my hon. Friend has been in Anti-Aircraft Command, are of opinion that their old command or service should be vastly increased, if necessary at the expense of other commands and services. He has reversed the process. But though his approach is unusual, I cannot altogether agree with him. It is probably true to say that we are nearing the end of the profitable development of anti-aircraft artillery, but it is certain, on the other hand, that anti-aircraft artillery will be needed for a great many years ahead.
My hon. Friend mentioned some of the factors which he thought might tend to make that untrue. First, he mentioned the speed of aircraft. It is certainly true that their speed makes the whole problem of air defence very much more difficult than it was before, but I do not think that it has a vital bearing on the problem whether we ought to have anti-aircraft artillery or not. My hon. Friend also raised the question of guided weapons. We have to remember that we have not yet got guided weapons in service. Even when we have them I do not think that it will be found, at any rate in the early years, that they are likely to be directly competitive with anti-aircraft artillery. They will be operating at different heights and ranges and both weapons will have different tasks and will work in together.
My hon. Friend then spoke at some length about the possible economies of handing over Anti-Aircraft Command to the R.A.F., and he spoke about the big command structure and so forth. I have been into this quite carefully. My own view is that the prospects of economies by doing that are illusory. I should like to give one or two reasons for that view. There are a great many men in Anti-Aircraft Command and when we have a large body of men we must have a command structure to look after their training, discipline and administration. It does not happen just by itself.
The average size of an Anti-Aircraft group at full strength is 40,000 men. It is commanded by a major-general. A major-general commands a division in the field army with very many fewer men under his command and I do not think that the whole structure is really overblown. In addition, Anti-Aircraft Command has the advantage of the Army's

static administrative layout with such people as command land agents, district engineers, and so forth.
If we were to transfer all these men to the Air Force there would be no certainty that we should be able to reduce the Army's static layout in this country in the same proportion as their loss of men. Somebody like a command land agent deals with everybody in his area, whereas one would have to create a very considerable Air Force layout. The area of the permanent Army Command is not by any means necessarily the area where the Air Force personnel are stationed.
I do not think my hon. Friend is right in saying that it would be feasible to put all these men under Fighter Command. Fighter Command has a big task already and I do not think that it would be possible for the Air officer in command of Fighter Command to look after his own very technical command and the whole training, discipline and administration of Anti-Aircraft Command.
If we handed Anti-Aircraft Command over to the Air Ministry we should have to create a new command in the Air Force. Comparisons are odious and I do not wish to make them, but I do not think that I would say, anyway, that the administration of the Air Force was more economical than the administration of the War Office. I should like to say that they were the same. My hon. Friend raised the question of morale. It is true that many of these regiments have very long traditions indeed, and except in the limited case of a certain number of Bofors guns the Air Force has no tradition of operating artillery. They know something about the wrong end of a gun, but they have no experience of operating a gun from the right end. The whole of their training, experience and tradition would have to be acquired, and it would take some time.
On the question of flexibility between static anti-aircraft defence and the field force anti-aircraft units, it seems to me that the one way not to have flexibility is to make static units in this country part of the Air Force. If they are part of the Army they can obviously be switched from home to abroad if it is necessary to do so. It seems to me that if we put them in the Air Force we positively decrease flexibility.
Operation in war has been worked out and proved in war and tested again in peace-time since the war. At the moment the Air Defence Commander is the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Fighter Command. He enjoys not only the complete command and control of Fighter Command but also the operational command of all anti-aircraft guns in this country and of the fire of ships in harbour. It was proved again and again in the war that to exercise operational command it is not necessary to command administratively. It works perfectly well. I see no reason whatever to suppose that that is now likely to go wrong.
My hon. Friend mentioned some of the the static lay-out in this country, which he thought was out-of-date and over-expensive. That matter has been gone into, and is from time to time gone into, most carefully. The lay-out is not the responsibility of Anti-Aircraft Command. It is the responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff as advised by the Air Defence Commander. I can assure my hon. Friend that the present conception of the correct lay-out of our anti-aircraft defences in war is by no means the same as it was during the last war. There has been a good deal of new thought upon the subject.
In spite of the perspiration of good will required of one in replying to the last but one debate on the Christmas Adjournment, I cannot agree that my hon. Friend's proposal is sound either operationally or administratively. Though I shall, of course, report what he has said to my noble Friend and ask him to consider it, I cannot hold out any very firm hopes that we shall accept his suggestion.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT (PERSONAL CASE)

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow. East (Mr. Ian Harvey) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence for shortening their speeches to enable us to get back to schedule for the last Adjournment debate.
The case to which I shall address myself refers to a constituent of mine.

Daniel Edwin Hulse, who has since boy hood been a resident in Oldbury. He has had five years' active service in the British Army—

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]

Mr. Moyle: Mr. Hulse and his family enjoy the highest esteem of the community in which they live. He is an active member of the British Legion and also of the Association of ex-Servicemen's Families. I mention these facts because of what follows in stating the case on his behalf.
Hulse is 36 years of age, and was 31 at the time when he fell ill. As a result of disquieting symptoms, he presented himself to the General Hospital, Birmingham, and reported to the Steel-house Lane Clinic, Birmingham, on the advice of his own doctor. This case has been the subject of representations by me to the Minister of Health, on behalf of Mr. Hulse for the purpose of securing for him an ex gratia payment for he was the subject of wrong diagnosis and for what he suffered as a result of that wrong diagnosis.
This case was the subject of an action in the High Court of Birmingham in October this year, when a claim for damages was made on the ground of negligence on the part of two doctors, a Dr. Wilson and a Mr. Kirkham, both of whom were attached to the West Bromwich General Hospital. These two doctors were listed with the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board as defendants. The case received widespread publicity, and there was a five days' hearing before judgment was reached by Mr. Justice Finnemore. The action for damages failed.
I do not propose to question that judgment in any way. I am merely concerned that consideration shall be given to Hulse in the light of some of the comments made in that judgment by Mr. Justice Finnemore. Hulse, as I have pointed out, reported on the advice of his doctor to the Steelhouse Lane Clinic, whose sole purpose is the treatment of venereal diseases. Hulse was examined by doctors at the clinic and became an out-patient.


There was a period of seven months between the time of his first examination by the doctors at the clinic and his admission to the West Bromwich General Hospital on 1st January, 1949. On 3rd January, 1949, he there underwent a minor operation, and it is clear both from the history of the case and the whole process of treatment that he was suspected of venereal disease throughout the whole period prior to and at the time of this operation.
I am advised that he was subjected to the strictest ostracism while in the hospital. All his linen was specially named, all the crockery which he used was specially marked, a screen placed around his bed throughout his stay—all based on the assumption that he had this particular disease. That assumption was bound to go beyond the hospital, and it caused social ostracism in his own community. For some three years he had been keeping company with a young lady, but by mutual arrangement that friendship was broken off.
It was not until March, 1949, that, as a result of an examination by Dr. Brooks at the Birmingham General Hospital, it was first discovered that he was not suffering at all in the slightest degree from venereal disease of any kind, but from what was described as a perfect ulcer and what is generally known as cancer.
While Mr. Justice Finnemore, in his judgment, discounted the charge of negligence against the two doctors and the hospital board, he did make specific reference to that seven months period. He said that he could not accept the charge of negligence but, expressing sympathy with the plaintiff said specifically that had there been a correct diagnosis in the first place the man would have been saved much pain and suffering. Further, there was strong evidence given, although not accepted by the judge, that had the diagnosis been correct in the first place there might not have been the necessity to undergo a grave major operation in July, 1949. In July, 1949, at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Mr. Hulse underwent an operation which caused a grave amputation as a result of which he is no longer able to return to a normal life, nor is he, and never will be, capable of becoming a father.
This case has aroused a great deal of criticism in my own constituency, and

Mr. Hulse has been the subject of much ostracism until it was subsequently discovered and made known that he was affected by cancer and that there was not the slightest case for suggesting that he had venereal disease. He has been unemployed and unable to work for five years, and I am advised that it is not likely that he will be able to resume employment for some time to come.
I pointed out these facts to the Minister and I made my claim for some ex gratia payment without prejudice to the judgment and without prejudice to the interests of the Ministry and of the Treasury, because I realise how difficult it is to establish such a claim against a judgment reached in the courts, but it is a practice which is resorted to in local government service in certain special circumstances and. of course, in the commercial world.
I repeat to the Parliamentary Secretary what I stated to the Minister, that the social ostracism that this man had to sustain in the light of the treatment that he received over a period of many months was even worse than the disease itself, and I also wish to emphasise the delay which was experienced from the time that my constituent was first treated in May, 1948, until his admission to hospital in January, 1949.
I was somewhat surprised when I received the Minister's decision couched in terms which, I thought, was Ministerial officialese at its worst. There was not a note of sympathy, but just a bare reply dismissing the application and referring to the judgment of the High Court and the right of my constituent to appeal, if he so desired, against that judgment.
I should have thought that the Minister would at least have expressed some sympathy with my constituent when he sent that letter to me, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will find it possible to express, at any rate, a note of sympathy with my constituent. I think that can be done without in any way imperilling the legal position of the Ministry, most certainly in the light of the fact that the judge went out of his way to express the sympathy of the whole court with my constituent because of what he had endured.
That is my case. I repeat that my constituent is a good citizen, one of the


highest repute, with a first-class record in the Army in the last war. Not only he, but two of his brothers and his sister were engaged in active service. Therefore, notwithstanding the decision conveyed to me in the Minister's letter yesterday, I hope that further consideration will be given to the representations which I have made, and that some way will be found by which an ex gratia payment can be given to my constituent, in the light of the grounds which I have advanced in support of his case this afternoon.

4.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I must say straight away that my right hon. Friend and I have the greatest sympathy with this unfortunate young man, who has been the victim of a very rare condition of a disease which is found most infrequently in a man of his years. I can assure the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) that my right hon. Friend was certainly not lacking in sympathy for this case. In his reply to the hon. Member it is probable that, in his opinion, he was replying only on the facts of the case.
It is true that Mr. Hulse was initially referred to the Steel House Lane Clinic, and it was established by independent medical witnesses, and the best advice that could be obtained—and these matters are ones of medical decision—that there was nothing to suggest, in the early stages of examination, that this unfortunate young man was suffering from cancer. It is true that, initially, it was suspected that he had venereal disease, and he was therefore referred for tests and treatment. Later, he had a minor operation, when the ulcer was disclosed which, ultimately, was diagnosed as that of cancer.
But it was possible from his symptoms that his condition might have been caused by three different types of complaint, and in the opinion of the medical advice at the time cancer was the least likely cause. Subsequently, in July, 1949, as the hon. Member said, he had a total amputation and later had several further operations, mainly of a plastic nature.
The patient claims that if his condition had been diagnosed in time total

amputation would have been avoided, or he might have needed only a partial amputation. He brought his action for negligence against Dr. Wilson and Mr. Kirkham and a decision and judgment was given by Mr. Justice Finnemore. In that decision, which the hon. Member very fairly says he does not challenge, it was not established that an earlier diagnosis of this acute and rare condition would have affected the result or made less necessary a total amputation.
With regard to the question of ostracism, of which the hon. Member has made a particular point, I am sure that on thinking over the matter he will realise that the decision he requires would have very wide implications. I am sure he will realise further that, however much we sympathise with this young man, medical diagnosis of a condition like this cannot be an exact science. Often it does take time to get down to the exact cause of some severe and rare type of ailment, such as this young man had.
So far as the question of ostracism is concerned, I should not like to accept in any way the condemnation of the hospital that the hon. Gentleman made in suggesting that this young man was treated harshly, that he was unduly ostracised, beyond the normal medical precautions of the staff, taken with the best interests of the patients at heart, and in the light of their then diagnosis that he was suffering from a venereal complaint.

Mr. Moyle: I did not speak of harsh treatment. I speak with some experience of general hospitals before I came to the House, and what I did say was that it is most unusual for a screen to be put around the bed, for the linen to be marked with the patient's name, and the cups and saucers used, for the period that he was in the hospital, from 1st January until his discharge on 4th January.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If those were the medical precautions deemed necessary I do not think it is fair to challenge them. The young man has been fully cleared of any such stigma, if that is what the hon. Gentleman feels it was, and that is very apparent from the wide publicity given to this case and to the establishment of the fact that his complaint was a form of cancer. In a young man of his age it is very rare indeed, as was established


by the court's investigations. There was nothing in the early stages to put Mr. Wilson on his guard against the grave condition that was ultimately discovered after the lesser operation.
The suggestion that an ex gratia payment should be made is asking the Minister, if he had the power, technically to override a decision of the High Court. If the patient is dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court he has the right of appeal, and he is entitled to take his case to appeal. He did not so decide. To pay an ex gratia payment to a patient who has suffered from a severe ailment through no medical negligence of the staff, and in a difficult and complicated case, has lost a claim in court on the grounds of negligence, would technically override the decision of the court.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will, on mature reflection, realise that it would open the floodgates to endless cases of claims from people who have suffered severely from particular diseases, though there had been no negligence, and who have suffered severely, as we all acknowledge this young man has done. It would negative the decision of the courts and would certainly lead to claims following cases taken, rightly or wrongly, against hospital authorities or doctors and lost in the courts.
To my knowledge, there is certainly no precedent for making a payment of this kind. This case has been fully heard over a long session in court, and the court has decided that there was no negligence. No one will deny that the patient has

had a most unfortunate and unhappy experience of a rare illness for one of his young age, with very grave consequences to himself, but, as no negligence can be imputed to the hospital authorities or to the doctors concerned my right hon. Friend feels that it would be quite wrong to treat this as a special case and, in effect, reopen the judgment of the court. As I have said, if the plaintiff had wished to reopen the case he could have done so under the ordinary processes of appeal.
I realise the hon. Gentleman's real sympathy—indeed, I share it—with this unhappy and unfortunate young man, but it is obvious that if a case of this kind has been taken through our courts, outside the Ministry or this House, and decided, then it is not for the Ministry or the Treasury to override that decision and, by making a payment, impute to the doctors a negligence which the courts do not admit, thus opening the floodgates to any and every appeal on sympathy grounds.
I am sorry that we cannot meet the hon. Gentleman in any way which we believe fair to the general conduct of the National Health Service but I should again like to assure him of our very great sympathy with this young man in the very unhappy time he has had.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Four o'Clock till Tuesday, 19th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.